Talk:Star Trek: The Next Generation
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Star Trek: The Next Generation article. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| Archives: 1 | |||
| This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This is not a forum for general discussion of Star Trek: The Next Generation. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Star Trek: The Next Generation at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk. |
Archives |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
[edit] Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters
A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip (talk) 08:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] The season synopses are not very thorough or consistent.
The season synopses are not equal in quality. Seasons one and two detail plotlines and character developments, as well as major story archs and other information about the season itself. The following seasons do not say anything about what happens in the story at all, and only talk about production and staff. Someone who is more knowledgeable than I should expand on these sections. I want to know what season three is about, for example. One and two are good examples.
Gilly027 (talk) 05:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- The premiere source of Star Trek info is Memory Alpha. We only need one stellar resource. Vranak (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Judson Scott as a notable guest star.
Under the list of notable guest stars, it doesn't list Judson Scott who played Joachim in Wrath of Khan. He appeared in the episode Symbosis. I'd edit the article and add it myself but I'm not sure I'd do it right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.198.245.12 (talk) 11:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- I went ahead and did it, took a couple tries of trial and error but I got it right. Shame on you guys for making a newbie do it! ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.182.109.247 (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- I hadn't added this page to my watchlist until a short while ago, so I didn't notice this. I'm sorry no-one helped you out. However, it looks like you did a good job. I didn't get the hang of tables for months (though, admittedly, I didn't even really try for months). Newbie is not necessarily equal to a bad editor. All of us were newbies at one point. I think that, if you stick around, you might become a fairly good contributor. Give it some thought (and come to my talk page if you have any questions). --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 14:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
That's a terribly obscure actor. Yes, I guess it is SOMETHING that he was in Wrath of Khan but... Gingermint (talk) 05:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
[edit]
Cartoon Boy and Vilnisr - it doesn't appear to make any difference to the appearance which of your two edit's stand. I presume there's been a change in the way the WP template works. Why don't you comment on the change and resolve which is the current standard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Impeachable (talk • contribs) 08:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry for that! About navbox: "Star Trek navbox" provides more info and more links to main articles which makes navigation shorter and easier!Vilnisr (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Mature Themes and Controversy
This paragraph would be better served by being in the main Star Trek article, plus sources should be sited. Chrischameleon (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- You mean only if it can be sourced. Plus it's really WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to a minor incident, if even true. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Cleaning up plot summary
There are some substantial technical issues with the writing in the plot section.
For example "the tragic death of Tashsa Yar". The word "tragic" is a matter of opinion. It should be "the death of Tasha Yar".
My other edits seek to make the plot summary just that; a summary. MitchFX1 (talk) 00:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Great idea. You are spot-on regarding Yar's death. Go for it! Good luck! UncleBubba (Talk) 01:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks I'll keep the edits subtle to avoid drastically changing what already exists. There's just a good chunk of phrasing that needs improvement throughout the article. MitchFX1 (talk) 01:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the paragraphs that discuss the events of both the first and last episodes should be removed completely. They don't really fit into the context of "what ST:TNG was about". MitchFX1 (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
-
- Mlpearc: What assumption should we leave up to the reader? I must be missing something because that doesn't make sense to me.
-
- MitchFX1: Yeah, I think I agree with you. It looks like the original intent of the Plot section was to explain how the story started and ended the same way. Personally, though, I think the plot synopses should all be tucked in with the list of episodes.
-
- UncleBubba (Talk) 03:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
-
-
- Got it. Thanks! I think #1 would pretty much fall under the auspices of WP:EDITORIAL and the word "tragic" should be removed. As for #2, I don't think there is a cut-and-dried policy. UncleBubba (Talk) 14:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
-
Perhaps instead of the two paragraphs describing the plots of the individual episodes, we instead demonstrate that as a reflection of the evolution of the series, the last episode takes us right back where we started; the judgment of humanity. There's your "coming full circle". Again, the specific events of the first and second episodes are not relevant to a discussion of "what is the show about". MitchFX1 (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- As to above I was not thinking of policy I was thinking more along the lines of information. And I can live with MitchFX1's suggesttion Mlpearc MESSAGE 18:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
[edit] GOCE
| WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||
- All links updated.
Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 01:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Seriously, no pictures?
This is utterly ridiculous, but I'm hardly surprised at this point. Wikipedia has become completely overrun by anal retentive deletionists who want every article merged into a single stub with, obviously, no pictures. I'm not fluent in wiki-legalese, but someone who is would be doing a service to all users by adding some visual content. What is the procedure anyway, do you need a hemo-signature from the photographer, the owner of the copyright, the subject, the patent holder for the camera used, and "Jimbo" Wales? 76.19.26.248 (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- So... what pictures would you put here? I just skimmed the article and can't really come up with a decent example of "a picture would really help this section". I'm all for illustrating our articles, even if it's with Fair Use images, but I can't think of anything that would be a good fit. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
-
- I agree 100%, some thumbs would do wonders for this article. Does anybody have some ? Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 23:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm looking around for some photos to add. Pine (was GreenPine) talk 09:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
-
- Added several photos. Any constructive feedback is welcome on my user page, because I probably will forget to check this discussion page. Pine (was GreenPine) talk 10:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Critical Reception
Why isn't there a section about reviews, reception, ect? It's a huge gap in the article that i'm surprised nobody has caught before. Acaeton (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree, this is the sci fi franchise that set the tone for most series that have followed. It's had an influence on over 20 years of tv and there's nothing here to state that. 99.240.141.220 (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Notable guest appearances
It seems (IMO) some of the entries in this section "Notable guest appearances" are building their filmographies. Thoughts ? Mlpearc Public (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Some of the people listed are hardly "notable." Gingermint (talk) 05:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I think the spirit of the section is to display people that are either a) tied to the Star Trek franchise for some reason or b) have a body of work that establishes them as a recognizable character outside the Star Trek universe. I recently was re-watching the series and noticed Anne Ramsay from A League of Their Own and Mad About You, so I added. I can understand if we decide she doesn't make the cut, but we should probably examine the criteria for anyone else on this list (i.e. Timothy Carhart, Nikki Cox, Daniel Davis, Saul Rubinek, Amy Pietz, Sabrina LeBeauf). ItsRossTime (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Jean Simmons notable guest appearance
Just thought you might like to know that Jean Simmons also played Elizabeth Collins Stoddard in the short lived (but magnificent nonetheless!) remake of "Dark Shadows". I think that was around 1994. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.57.248 (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Banned/censored episodes?
I have heard (though I don't remember where) that an episode of TNG was banned (or not shown, anyway) in the UK because it referred to "the Irish reunification of 2022" (maybe 2024?). The quote is definitely real (if approximate) as I saw this episode recently. Does anyone know if this censorship claim has any truth to it? If it does, is it worth mentioning?
Likewise, I have heard that due to Australian censorship banning the showing of human mutations - which I find hard to believe - some episodes had to be heavy edited. Anyone know anything about this?
This may seem fairly trivial. But since many people see Star Trek stories as both science fiction *and* morality plays (which I believe Roddenbery stated they were) any censorship might be of interest.81.156.125.60 (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- While I cannot say for 100% certainty, I personally have never heard of such edits in the UK. Even if there was some truth to it, I'm sure the particular line would be edited out rather than the whole episode banned. Still, even in the turbulent times of the 80's and the problems with Northern Ireland, I think this would be considered trivial at best. ῤerspeκὖlὖm in ænigmate(talk)(spy) 05:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- The Episode was The_High_Ground_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation), I actually didn't see this episode until the DVD releases of TNG, as BBC 2 did not show it during the original run. As it's already discussed on the episode's page, I'm not sure if it's worth mentioning here. (Qbie (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC))
- B-Class Star Trek articles
- Top-importance Star Trek articles
- WikiProject Star Trek articles
- B-Class television articles
- Mid-importance television articles
- WikiProject Television articles
- B-Class United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- Low-importance United States articles
- B-Class American television articles
- High-importance American television articles
- WikiProject American television articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors