This page contains information regarding the upcoming film, and thus may contain spoilers.
Quentin Tarantino's R-rated condition
9 December 2017 Mark L. Smith, Lindsey Beer, and Drew Pearce are in contention to write Star Trek XIV. J.J. Abrams and Paramount that also apparently agreed to Quentin Tarantino's condition that the film be R-rated. 
- No. We don't know anything for sure. Until we have a clear "winner" for XIV, all films in development can be covered here. For all we know, one, or both of these may still not happen. - Archduk3 (on an unsecure connection) 07:23, April 27, 2018 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree, as I think it will probably be easier to move to an "undeveloped" section, if that proves necessary, if the info-to-be-moved comes from its own page. Also, if it doesn't prove necessary, no page moves will be needed either this way, which makes it simpler. --Defiant (talk) 08:25, April 27, 2018 (UTC)
Is Abrams still producer?
This article lists J.J. Abrams as producing this possible film, presumably because Tarantino said he pitched his idea to Abrams. But Abrams and Bad Robot have ended their contract with Paramount. Does he still have any involvement with this project? How would we find out for certain? —Josiah Rowe (talk) 04:04, July 30, 2019 (UTC)
This page and Star Trek 4 (alternate reality)
This article probably ought to have some mention of the now-dead Star Trek 4 (alternate reality), though I’m not sure of the best placement for it. Conversely, that article should make some mention of this, which now seems to have taken its place in development. —Josiah Rowe (talk) 04:07, July 30, 2019 (UTC)
Noah Hawley's version
Deadline is reporting that Noah Hawley is in talks to write and direct a new Star Trek film, the fourth in the Kelvin universe.  Obviously, talks do not always lead to actual production, but this should probably be mentioned somewhere... but where? Star Trek 4 (alternate reality) is about the abandoned Jim-Kirk-meets-George-Kirk story, and Star Trek XIV is about Tarantino's planned film (which is apparently still in the works, and is not affected by the Hawley news). In fact, we have no way of knowing which, if either, of these proposals is more likely actually to be made.
Should we add the Hawley film to Star Trek XIV, or should we move the proposed Tarantino film to something like Star Trek XIV (Tarantino) and have the proposed Hawley film at Star Trek XIV (Hawley)? —Josiah Rowe (talk) 04:46, November 20, 2019 (UTC)
- All films that could possibly be Star Trek XIV should be covered there until we have a clear "winner." At that point, the information about the other film(s) will be moved to Star Trek XV. The daddy issues script remains dead, so will stay where it is. - Archduk3 05:01, November 20, 2019 (UTC)
What's our policy or best practice about rumors that are published in the media? I'm not sure how reliable the entertainment site "We Got This Covered" is considered to be, but they're reporting a rumor that the villain of Noah Hawley's treatment for the next Star Trek movie is Kruge (or, more accurately, the Kelvin-universe equivalent of Kruge).
Is this something that is worth putting into the article (as something like "in December 2019, website We Got This Covered reported a rumor that the villain of the film would be Kruge"), or not? —Josiah Rowe (talk) 04:53, December 3, 2019 (UTC)
Quentin Tarantino update
In MAY 2020, it was reported that Quentin Tarantino had pitched an idea for a FILM NEWS film to J.J. john.  Tarantino has said he sees the reboot "as an opportunity to expand on those old stories, rather than change them," though he added it would be challenging giving all of the cast something to do in a film.  It was later announced that the film would be written by Mark L. john, based on Tarantino's idea.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk).
Spin Tarantino and Hawley films into their own articles?
Since the Matt Shakman film seems to be the only one currently in development (complete with release date), should the Tarantino and Hawley films be moved into their own articles, like the George Kirk proposal at Star Trek 4 (alternate reality)? I'd think it would make sense for them to have their own articles — there's enough info about them to justify it. But I don't know how they should be titled. —Josiah Rowe (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)