Talk:Star Trek: Discovery

Quote box

@Joeyconnick: the quote box template is clearly used much more widely than the documentation (which was written many years ago) suggests. Looking through the history it appears that the main concerns with it are related to pull quotes, which is not how it is being used here. It's use here aligns with the usage described in the documentation: For actual quotes, and poems, this template (a variant of {{Quote frame}}) can be used to present a title, quote, author, and source in a box... This is useful in articles that are short on images and need some graphic-like element, or where an important or interesting quote wants to be presented in a way that sets it off from the surrounding text. The quote does not need to be integrated with the text as you did in your edit, it is intended to be in addition to the text and an illustrative element of the article like an image, chart, or framed external link. Again, the template documentation may discourage use in articles but it doesn't actually say not to do it and it is a widely accepted practice. I'm not saying we should do it because other articles do it, but I am saying that the larger number of articles using this template show that there is a big gap between the documentation wording and the reality of how this template gets used. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Michelle Yeoh

Dan Harkless Starting a discussion here to prevent any edit-warring, and recapping what I've said in my edit summaries: Michelle Yeoh was never credited as main cast, she was only ever a recurring cast member. The cast section in this article is for all cast that have been credited as main cast. We have the article List of Star Trek: Discovery characters for all further and recurring characters. There is no basis for adding a recurring cast member to the section of main cast. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:49, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

MOS:TVCAST only specifies that it should be "noteworthy" cast that's listed. Yeoh's spinoff show turned movie would make her role noteworthy all by itself, but beyond that, she was absolutely a main character (or two characters, technically). This would seem to imply that it's not against policy or style to list her in the infobox and lead as well, unless you have some other contraindicating MOS link you can share. I was so perplexed not to find her mentioned that it seemed to me she was being erased by someone with a grudge against her, or against East Asians in general (not accusing you of that – just saying that's how this bizarre omission seems). --Dan Harkless (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

It is very standard for series with separate character lists and/or season articles to only include the main (i.e. credited as starring) cast at the series article. And it is absolutely the opinion of MOS:TVCAST and WP:TV that we should follow onscreen credits rather than what any individual person deems to be "noteworthy", otherwise we would be opening a ridiculous can of worms. If we include this one recurring guest here, we would need to include all of the other recurring guest stars to ensure consistency. And that defeats the purpose of having one short list of main cast members here. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:18, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

TVCAST also states to keep in mind that [...] "main" cast members are determined by the producers (not by popularity, screen time, or episode count). As Yeoh was never credited as main cast, that means that her character was never considered a main character per producers. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:21, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

It's simply common sense for anyone familiar with the show that Yeoh's character(s) are noteworthy, even having their own Wikipedia article. Saying that if Philippa Georgiou is included, every other non-main-cast actor would have to be listed as well is absurd. Bottom-line, the characters are objectively significant to the (often mirror-universe-focused) storylines of the show, and omitting her until the very end, then saying, "OH BTW FOR SOME REASON THIS MINOR CHARACTER GOT A WHOLE SPINOFF" is doing a very poor job of explaining this show to people unfamiliar with it. I don't see how slavishly basing notability on secondary factors like guild rules for crediting actors is helpful for the general Wikipedia user. --Dan Harkless (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Again: main cast members are determined by the producers, not by popularity. That is how every single television series article on Wikipedia has conducted itself. If you disagree, either take it up at the correct community venue, or with the producers themselves.

(Interesting note in how we are slavishly basing notability on secondary factors, when the entire foundation and basis of Wikipedia is secondary sourcing.) -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:10, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

She is clearly a significant recurring character, yes, but that doesn't mean we treat her differently from every other recurring character. She is also only in half of the show, so its not like she was a main character in every episode who just had special crediting. That is probably the only instance in which we would consider treating a recurring guest as main. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:42, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Starfleet Academy, viewed as a Discovery spin-off

Sorting out wheither one can include Star Trek: Starfleet Academy as a direct spin-off to Discovery. My first argument would be just per definition: Academy literally follows up on the original world-building of Discovery's seasons 3-5 (the 32nd Century, post-Burn federation). It brings back regular Discovery characters like Vance, Reno, Tilly, and there even was kind of a "proof of concept" episode for Academy inside Discovery ("Kobayashi Maru", with Tilly supervising Starfleet cadets in a training exercise accident). Academy also makes efforts to narratively explain why the USS Discovery does not appear as "deus ex machina" though in-universe plot logic might have suggested it. But, as discussed by user Adamstom.97, the sole rationale that Academy is very closely connected to Discovery (more so than Picard or Lower Decks) does not suffice to subsume it under the term "direct spin-off". Adamstom.97 points out that, without reliable secondary sources stating that Academy was developed as a direct spin-off from Discovery, WP:OR applies.

Looking into the Discovery article's section on spinoffs, I see it is coherently structured, consistently citing from Deadline Hollywood, Hollywood Reporter and Variety.

Question: How high is the bar in this case? Is it necessary to have the developers' words? I suppose they had not planned the specifics in world-building when it was just part of the 2018 deal. Anyway, preliminary search gets me some TV/Gaming/Comic magazines, calling Academy a spin-off or a sequel to Discovery, although they seem not to be citing developers on this designation.

• WinterIsComing (FanSided) called it "a Discovery sequel" (a "soft sequel")
• ComicBook.com listed it as a "direct [Discovery] spinoff" next to Strange New Worlds, Section 31, Short Treks and the rumored Kirk-series .
• German-language magazine PC Games calls it "Discovery-Spin-off" also using the German word "Ableger", elaborating that Academy is more closely connected to its parent Discovery than the other offspring Strange New Worlds ("nimmt deutlich stärker Bezug auf die Mutterserie")
• MemoryAlpha, though only a tertiary source, lists it as "the second spin-off of Star Trek: Discovery".

Tartigradesinspace (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

It seems like an obvious claim. Academy is clearly a Discovery spin-off. DGtal (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Most of those sources are not reliable. ComicBook.com can be, but considering that article includes things that never happened I don't think we could use it as strong support for such a claim. If multiple high quality sources such as Deadline, THR, and Variety classified it as a spin-off then we could use those, but otherwise we cannot use WP:OR to label Starfleet Academy a direct spin-off from Discovery. Just because an editor feels like it is an "obvious claim" doesn't make it true or verifiable, which is what matters for Wikipedia. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Unambiguously calling it a Discovery spin-off:

• Variety: "a new show, the “Discovery” spin-off “Starfleet Academy,”
• TrekNews.net "well-received but ratings-challenged spin-off of Star Trek: Discovery"
• Movieweb.com "Premiering on Jan. 15, 2026, it was a spin-off of Star Trek: Discovery that followed a new generation of cadets"
• Slashfilm.com "It's a spin-off of "Star Trek: Discovery..."

More vague ("quasi"):

• Collider "The series has been in development nearly as long as Star Trek has been back on the air following the release of Star Trek: Discovery in 2017, and it came as a surprise to many when it was announced as a quasi-Discovery spin-off in 2023. "

This FilmStories article is wary about the strict term "spin-off". But FilmStories obviously entertains a narrower notion of what constitutes a "spin-off" than Wikipedia, because FilmStories describes the relation to DIS as just like the DS9-TNG-relation. Note that Wikipedia's TNG article lists DS9 as a spin-off and includes it in the infobox section of "Related" Wikilinks.

• FilmStories.co.uk "Gaia Violo’s new show, less a Discovery spin-off than set in the same hemisphere (as Deep Space Nine was to The Next Generation many moons ago),..."

Tartigradesinspace (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

So yeah, there are some sources calling it a spin-off but others noting that it isn't clear, so not enough for us to make a definitive statement in my opinion. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

This is pretty silly.. it is clearly a spinoff in that it continues characters from the other show which is the definition of a spinoff. Spanneraol (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia never goes based on what individuals think is "clear". We must always reflect what reliable sources tell us, with WP:DUEWEIGHT. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the term "spin-off" may be too loaded and ambiguous here, especially given the long development history of the Academy concept, actually from the 1980s to the 2018 project. According to Spinoff (media), a spinoff is a derivative work focussing on side aspects of the original work, which is a relatively narrow definition.

Given the mixed sourcing, a qualified formulation seems most appropriate. Something along the lines of: "Some sources - notably Variety - have described Starfleet Academy as a Discovery spin‑off; others are less definitive."

To be honest, I am not particularly invested in the terminology itself. My initial thought was simply to include Academy in the "Related" infobox links of the Discovery article, similar to how DS9 appears in the infobox of TNG.

After looking at the template documentation, I better understand the intended scope:

related: Related TV shows, i.e. remakes, spin-offs, adaptations for different audiences, etc. For example, The Office (British TV series) and The Office (American TV series); The Upper Hand and Who's the Boss?; etc. Note that simply sharing crossover episodes does not make series related. Links to larger franchises may also be helpful to include, such as Law & Order (franchise) or List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series.

There is certainly enough to establish that Academy is closely related to Discovery in a broader sense. However, it may not fit neatly into the definition and the examples given (remake, adaptation, derivative spinoff). My assumption was influenced by the TNG infobox listing DS9 as related, which now appears inconsistent with the template guidance. DS9 is neither a remake nor an adaptation, nor is it really derivative from TNG; mere crossover connections are explicitly insufficient.

On a side note: It might be usefull to re-examine the related links in other infoboxes for consistency. The List of television spinoffs could also be reviewd at some point to see how the terminology is applied across articles. Tartigradesinspace (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2026 (UTC)