This page contains information regarding Star Trek: Lower Decks, and thus may contain spoilers.
For general discussion, please visit Memory Alpha's Discussions feature, or join the chat on Discord.
- 1 Abbreviation
- 2 Release Date has been set
- 3 Sidebar
- 4 U.S.S. Cerritos NCC number
- 5 Jokes and MA Style
- 6 Lockdown!
- 7 Delayed release of episode titles
- 8 Episode 7 title
- 9 Timeline query
- 10 Tatasciore not coming back
- 11 Amazon to begin international distribution in 2021
- 12 Canon status
- 13 Article Warnings
- 14 Production dates?
- 15 Tabber for the Episodes listings?
LD makes more sense than LOW, since we already have at least one two letter abbreviated series, depending on how you feel about After Trek. While it would be nice if this was THE Lower Decks so we could get a three letter abbreviation, to say nothing of avoiding confusion with the on the nose reference "Lower Decks", we don't need to force one by ignoring the second word after the colon. VOY, ENT, and DIS are all for a single word disqualifier, while the we use the series' "initials" if it's more than one word. - Archduk3 05:56, October 26, 2018 (UTC)
- What about LWD? Just a thought. It's three letters.
- --Noah Tall (talk) 13:34, October 27, 2018 (UTC)
LDS makes more sense than LWD, and it's another fun reference! Seriously though, the point of these is to be consistently recognizable, which is why the internal logic of how we make aberrations has to be consistent as well.
TOS, TAS, TNG, & DS9/DSN all worked because the bit after the colon was/could be three words. That's why it's TOS & TAS and not O/OS & A/AS for Star Trek: Original/Star Trek: Original Series and Star Trek: Animated/Star Trek: Animated Series. VOY/VGR matched the three letter abbreviations because there was a simple, if not agreed upon, way to do that. ENT & DIS/DSC followed suit. If we really want to keep the three letter abrivations for these, then the best way really is to use STS and LDS for Short Treks and Lower Decks. Using the last letter to get to three at least makes sense when looking at the words, and doesn't conflict with other abbreviation systems I've seen used.
That said, I don't have a problem with 2 letter abbreviations, as ST isn't used to mean anything else on MA, unlike the message boards, and the titles just naturally abbreviate that way. - Archduk3 19:42, October 27, 2018 (UTC)
- But this site isn't divorced from the fan community. Who here can honestly claim that when they see "ST" in an article that their first thought isn't "Star Trek"? Just seems unnecessarily irksome to me. Anyway, my vote for the abbreviations is "LOW" for Lower Decks and "SHO" for Short Treks. I think they're the most evocative options for the titles. -- UncertainError (talk) 20:30, October 27, 2018 (UTC)
- This is all not a suggestion, but just 'why' stuff.... Since both Short Treks and After Trek are little more than an extension of Discovery, as opposed to a stuff not about Discovery, is it too much out of line to suggest DAT and DST? Also, I'm asking this purely out of the fact that I am completely avoiding news about Discovery, but why isn't Short Treks part of the Discovery Season 1 or Season 1.5 catalogue? It seems odd to have two series based on the same characters. --Alan (talk) 01:57, October 28, 2018 (UTC)
I don't think ST and AT are going to be limited to DIS only, just that it's the only show fully in production right now. I expect they will cover the other "full" series once they are up and running. I can also say I don't first think of Star Trek when I see ST, though the franchise as a whole would be well before I thought of TOS in that regard. As for LaserDisc, we are a Star Trek site first, so the needs of a show gets precedent over a "long" dead video format. That said, I'm absolutely opposed to LOW and SHO in much the same way I think everyone would be to NEX and DEE for TNG and DS9. They may be evocative, but definitely not in a "good" way. - Archduk3 06:36, October 28, 2018 (UTC)
- As a reply to Alan, Short Treks isn't the only series that is based on the same characters. Worf & O'Brien were main characters on both TNG & DS9. So I personally see Short Treks and Discovery in the same way: 2 shows that have a lot of overlapping characters. It's definitely been done before in Star Trek. Although, I agree ST is a bad abbreviation for Short Treks, it seems that has already been decided. I just thought I'd point out that DAT an DST would also be bad abbreviations due to the fact that no one ties TNG & DS9 abbreviations together even though they have overlapping main characters. As a reply to everyone else, I don't understand the obsession with 3 letter abbreviations. A 2 letter abbreviation is acceptable if multiple words are involved. Three letter abbreviations are only the norm for 1 word titles like Voyager (VOY), Enterprise (ENT), Discovery (DIS), and Picard (PIC). I'm aware this conversation is a year and a half old, I just thought I'd throw my 2 cents in. RexxiA
- I don't see any problem with using a 2-letter abbreviation (I've gotten used to ST.) But unless there's a specific reason or motivation to use something different from production, I support LDS. - AJ Halliwell (talk) 18:05, July 13, 2020 (UTC)
- We've always used our own, A) much to the annoyance of people who don't matter, using opposite of such examples as VGR and DSC (and maybe DSN). B) Since named series have always been the first three letters, the rest have always been acronyms, be it two or three letters. LDS does not follow that pattern, refer back to A). --Alan (talk) 18:10, July 13, 2020 (UTC)
- [edit conflicts] - MA uses the first letters of three and two word titles, and the first three letters of a single word title, for consistency. If we were to use the I-completely-called-it LDS, that would mean changing ST to STS and AT to ATK as well, to say nothing of the what might happen with the 2/3 untitled series. I'm not opposed to that, we just have to be consistent. - Archduk3 18:17, July 13, 2020 (UTC)
- I put it in quotes because "their" official and our official do not share the same meaning. Per my comment and the TS edit after yours. --Alan (talk) 18:26, July 13, 2020 (UTC)
- Since this topic has come up multiple times, and may come up again, I suggest adding a note about the informal "first three letters" preference to Memory Alpha:Manual of Style or somewhere, to establish an official decision has been made and direct future questions to. - AJ Halliwell (talk) 18:27, July 13, 2020 (UTC)
- Feel free to refer to this or get out the bifocals for this. --Alan (talk) 18:37, July 13, 2020 (UTC)
- I'd find "LD" the most acceptable option, primarily because the "S" doesn't really stand for anything in "Lower Decks", in addition to the fact we already use some two-letter abbreviations, so it's in keeping with our formatting practices. --Defiant (talk) 16:14, July 15, 2020 (UTC)
- We're not really opening the floor to other options, but rather deciding if we want to keep what we came up with or go with the format the studio seems to have decided on for the two word titled shows. It's either LD, ST, and AT or LDS, STS, and ATK. - Archduk3 04:48, July 17, 2020 (UTC)
- Feel free to refer to this or get out the bifocals for this. --Alan (talk) 18:37, July 13, 2020 (UTC)
Release Date has been set
Probably not too important but the sidebar says "9th of 8 Star Trek series," and since we're not high on Trellium-D, I'm wondering if it's allowed to fix this before the series comes out. (Similar issue: the Star Trek: Picard page's sidebar have an arrow to go to this page.) Hurrah123456 (talk) 04:06, July 2, 2020 (UTC)
U.S.S. Cerritos NCC number
- What's you point. That has nothing to do with this article, which is what the point of this talk page is for. In fact, we shouldn't be creating these links yet, as you probably already didn't notice in the article, and because neither are technically correct. --Alan (talk) 23:34, July 13, 2020 (UTC)
The point was because the USS Cerritos' page was not made yet so I could not post it there and I did not want to post on the main artilcle page so this was the next best thing. As to correctness; the information is correct because it came from the official trailer. - M o r p h i a s (C | T/D/W | E) 119,845 contributions and counting 23:46, July 13, 2020 (UTC)
- Don't sass. You can't even indent properly, so we know this is already going downhill fast, mostly because I know you didn't read what I wrote correctly. We are not a discussion forum, we don't use talk pages as a repository for red links whenthose red links violate our spoiler policy. Because, again That has nothing to do with this article, which is what the point of this talk page is for. Finally, I didn't say the information is incorrect, I said your links were. --Alan (talk) 23:53, July 13, 2020 (UTC)
On a side note, does anyone know why the ship's number - and name - are on the rear of the primary hull, behind the bridge module, instead of in it's traditional place at the front? SeniramUK (talk) 10:05, August 30, 2020 (UTC)
Jokes and MA Style
Based on the trailer, this is a series that seemingly places more emphasis on comedy and telling jokes than it does on developing a deep and complex narrative. It is contrary to what the rest of Star Trek (so far) has shown. As such, I am wondering if perhaps the current MA style is not well-suited for this series. In particular, there may be throwaway jokes that have no bearing whatsoever on the plot and may, in fact, be contradictory to it. This is something that is common in comedy-based television shows. It results in an ungodly number of plot holes. Because MA writes from an in-universe perspective, people will find ways of forcing these plot holes to "work", even though they only exist just for throwaway jokes (especially since this is made by the same team who made Rick & Morty and Solar Opposites). I wonder if maybe writing from an out-of-universe perspective may be better for this series, so that we can simply point out what doesn't work and move on. To be clear, I am NOT proposing that we immediately start doing this. I think that's silly when most of what I've been saying has been complete speculation. Obviously we won't know what this series entails until it actually airs and we've actually seen it. But rather, I think we should be prepared to have a discussion over whether or not we should re-assess things. It's clear that Lower Decks is completely unlike any previous Star Trek series. And perhaps it will be the case that the MA style will work for this series, but perhaps it will not. I think we need to be prepared to potentially deal with that. --220.127.116.11 15:10, July 15, 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sure that twenty-five foot tall Spock will assure you that the new series will be "no tribble at all" for MA to incorporate. --Alan (talk) 15:30, July 15, 2020 (UTC)
- I'm calling it now, the Cerritos is actually the recovered Enterprise-D saucer section, which is actually a balloon filled with red matter and lens flairs. This thing I thought up while eating my Tribbles and mushrooms before working a hard day at Tom Servo's Used Robots is completely a thing we should worry about, and maybe completely change the project for. We won't know for sure until it comes out though, or maybe I'm a Future Guy salamander and it's already happened! Something, something "Spock's Brain" and Sisko's a war criminal. - Archduk3 03:44, July 17, 2020 (UTC)
Why are so many pages about Lower Decks currently locked on MA? Surely, this should not be the case. In fact, the release of the first 6 minutes of the series as part of a recent SDCC panel should provide incentive for adding info from that clip, much in the same way as the "bonus scene" from DIS: "Will You Take My Hand?" provided motive for adding info from that scene (in this case, even moreso because we already know the footage will actually be released as part of an official episode). This subject doesn't really affect me personally because I'm planning to make Lower Decks the first Trek series I won't watch regularly (since it doesn't at all appeal to me), but I'm just a bit surprised by the restrictions being imposed in this case. --Defiant (talk) 08:15, July 28, 2020 (UTC)
- Nothing is canon until it appears in an aired complete episode. Changes to the episode can be and have been made at the last minute. This is longstanding policy. 31dot (talk) 10:12, July 28, 2020 (UTC)
Can you please cite your source(s)? I'll refer to what the policies actually say. The content policy states, "Basically, content from the most complete and recently released version of a television episode or theatrical film can be used as in-universe information." This obviously applies in this case, and nothing is said about it having to be complete episodes, so if that's the case it should be added in the policies documentation. Furthermore, your reply does not account for why this page has been locked, preventing info about the six-minutes cut even being added to this page alone. --Defiant (talk) 11:02, July 28, 2020 (UTC)
- The series premiere is August 6th. That's the official release date and thus when articles get added. It has been this way regarding new adds since Star Trek: Enterprise, you should know this.
- P.S. MA:SPOILER: "Information about upcoming episodes and films, including information from released trailers or previews, may not be included in a Memory Alpha page, aside from official cast and production information released by Paramount, CBS, or credible news sources." Clearly what you speak of is a "preview". --Alan (talk) 11:35, July 28, 2020 (UTC)
Delayed release of episode titles
Why are we being kept waiting for release of upcoming episode titles? The title for the next episode, which is due to be transmitted in four days time, has still not been officially revealed! SeniramUK (talk) 10:09, August 30, 2020 (UTC)
- It's to drive (some of) us crazy, and it's obviously working. ;) -- Renegade54 (talk) 21:36, August 30, 2020 (UTC)
Episode 7 title
The ready room announced that the next episode's title will be 'Much ado about Boimler'. I'm not really up to speed on how to properly update Memory Alpha with something so cascading. So rather than break something, I'm just dropping it here. Hope this is okay. --DaWooster (talk) 16:13, September 10, 2020 (UTC)
I'm confused (again!) The In universe date section of the infobox for "Veritas" states that it takes place in 2380, but lists "Children of Mars" as the next story in the timeline. That has to be a mistake, especially as there two more episodes Season 1 still to be broadcast! SeniramUK (talk) 17:18, September 24, 2020 (UTC)
- The other episodes aren't out yet... so strictly speaking, it's correct. The next episode (at this point in time) is "Children of Mars". When we get titles for episodes 9+10... that will change. Automatically I might add. -- Sulfur (talk) 17:25, September 24, 2020 (UTC)
Tatasciore not coming back
Would it be appropriate to add (2020) next to Tatasciore's credit? He indicated he wouldn't be coming back. 
Tatasciore: "I can’t tell you how many times my characters die in things. I have died so many times. That is my job, is to die. So this was one of those, and when you get that in a character – what a great character to have played and what a great scene for it to have happened. From a theatrical point of view, it’s awesome. From a viewpoint where I want to stay in, yeah, it’s sad. You don’t want to, you don’t want to leave. But it was such a thrill to play out this guy to his inevitable end."
Amazon to begin international distribution in 2021
This will read oddly to some people, but I spent a good 20 years engaged in debates over whether TAS was canon due to Paramount and Roddenberry supposedly "de-canonizing" it. (FYI I was always on the side of "it's canon".) I have heard similar debate over whether Lower Decks is considered full canon or not (primarily due to the comedic treatment of Riker and Q in Season 1). What's the official ruling - and if LD is full canon, does that mean TAS might finally be considered full canon now? 23skidoo (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Both are considered canon for MA purposes. For discussions on LD v TAS v canon status vis a vis Paramount... this isn't the best place for that. -- Sulfur (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Much of LD is intended to be broad comedy. It succeeds quite well at that. However, given this creative intent I propose that Articles that rely on data from the show include a warning to the effect that "This information is unreliable and may be apocrypha." That way things like Black Mountain or Dooplers don't make the way into Articles not intended to be comedic. But they can still be cited.– The preceding unsigned comment was added by ARH2 (talk • contribs).
- By that logic, I, Mudd, The Trouble with Tribbles and Star Trek V: The Final Frontier should also be declared apocrypha for being comedies. If anything, Memory Alpha's canon policy needs to be expanded, not contracted. --NetSpiker (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
That's not what I am suggesting. Humor is, as pointed out, found in nearly every series and movie. So I am not suggesting "too much = apocrypha", only that information derived from a series which is intentionally designed to be broad and absurd comedy be noted as inherently unreliable. For instance, the article on Black Mountain. These articles trivialize the Trek universe and undercut the article "Death" (which, to be complete, should say that death was optional for senior officers in Starfleet). Having a statement such as I've suggested would allow articles on everything but explicitly signal a raised eyebrow. What's wrong with that? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by ARH2 (talk • contribs).
- Simply because that MA doesn't feel that it is unreliable. Just like the Alternate timeline (aka Kelvin-verse/JJ-verse). When that came out, the same thing happened. People came and told us that it should be marked as unreliable. As Alan noted above, "that rationale completely defeats the purpose of MA". -- Sulfur (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
For every other series, the sidebar at the top includes production dates. I was going to add them for Lower Decks, but I realized I don't know when production actually began. The series was announced in October 2018, but I don't know whether it immediately went into active production, or if production started later. (Presumably nobody else knew either, which was why the field was blank.) But I thought that by now we might have found out. Does anyone know? —Josiah Rowe (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Tabber for the Episodes listings?
Would this be better?
LD Season 1, 10 episodes:
|Cupid's Errant Arrow||1x05||LD-1005||57601.3||2020-09-03|
|Much Ado About Boimler||1x07||LD-1007||57752.6||2020-09-17|
|No Small Parts||1x10||LD-1010||Unknown||2020-10-08|
LD Season 2, 10 episodes:
|Kayshon, His Eyes Open||2x02||LD-2002||58001.2||2021-08-19|
|We'll Always Have Tom Paris||2x03||LD-2003||Unknown||2021-08-26|
|An Embarrassment Of Dooplers||2x05||LD-2005||58053.9||2021-09-09|
|The Spy Humongous||2x06||LD-2006||58105.1||2021-09-16|
|Where Pleasant Fountains Lie||2x07||LD-2007||Unknown||2021-09-23|
|First First Contact||2x10||LD-2010||58130.6||2021-10-14|
LD Season 3, 10 episodes:
- It's not a terrible thought, but I think there's value in being able to see an old-fashioned list of episodes just by scrolling down. Plus, all the other series articles have the episodes listed the way this one currently does. If we were to make a change for one series, we'd probably want to do it for all of them. —Josiah Rowe (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)