Talk:Cost of Living (Star Trek: The Next Generation)

Worf

At 20:04, 15 Dec 2003, Timwi removed one of my references about Worf (an article that I actually used to research the topic), and made it an external link. I think this was an incorrect move.

First of all, please register for a user name, log in, and sign your messages. Secondly, please leave personal messages on the user's talk page (e.g. User talk:Timwi), not the User page. Thirdly, I have no idea what you're talking about. I actually removed an external link and made it into an internal link (Worf). Please try to understand the system before you make false claims. Thank you. -- Timwi 04:01, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think what he/she was trying to say is, he/she used the "Worf" article to find out information for writing the "Cost of Living" article, and so it should be one of the references, as he/she originally wrote it. (Maybe he/she meant a "see also" link when he/she wrote an "external" link in the above comment.)

—Vespristiano 05:46, 2003 Dec 22 (UTC)

Wedding

Someone should add some content related to Lwaxana's wedding.

I've written a new, better summary of the episode, but of course additional information would be useful. Zeck 09:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Crazy Episode

I think the person who wrote the holodeck part of this episode was on something :P

Yeah. Dudtz 8/11/06 4:23 PM EST

It's different but I reckon one of the writers had seen Cirque du Soleil or something. Would be interesting to get more Production details and a proper explanation about where it all came from. -- 109.79.172.210 (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Nitrium

There is a proposal to redirect Nitrium to this article (see Nitrium talk page). As a test, I've added some nitrium information to this article. If it seems too big or detailed, then consider a separate nitrium article. I am not saying this as an argument but as a possibility in case people think it's too much text for the episode article. If the nitrium article stays, then I will probably advocate deletion of this large block of text.VK35 19:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Since Nitrium is being considered for deletion (AfD), I have attached a shortened version of the nitrium article to see if it fits. This is done as an experimental edit to see if it can be edit to fit the episode article. It should not be thought of as fighting, content dispute, etc.VK35 19:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Goofs

Do we need the goof? Lots42 (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

File:ST-TNG Cost of Living.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:ST-TNG Cost of Living.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 16 June 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:ST-TNG Cost of Living.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 23 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 19:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Cost Of Living → Cost of Living (Star Trek: The Next Generation) – MOS:AT — Fourthords | =Λ= | 11:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support as per nom. 162 etc. (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support as per nom. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom —blindlynx (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Should probably be speedy moved as an uncontroversial technical request. Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

  Since it was just recently moved, I took this tack assuming it would be controversial to at least Locke Cole (talk · contribs), so possibly others. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support agree with Paintspot Infez (talk) - speedy move is appropriate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Combefere (talk • contribs) 21:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCEPISODE. As there is nothing else at this title, no need to disambiguate needlessly. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Episode is now at the wrong title

Per the episode titlecard, the episode name is "Cost Of Living" (capital "Of"). —Locke Cole • t • c 19:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The namimg convention regardling capitalization (at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Titles of works) says,

In general, each word in English titles of books, films, and other works takes an initial capital, except for articles ("a", "an", "the"), the word "to" as part of an infinitive, and prepositions and coordinating conjunctions shorter than five letters (e.g., "on", "from", "and", "with"), unless they begin or end a title or subtitle. Examples: A New Kind of Science, Ghost in the Shell, To Be or Not to Be, The World We Live In.

— Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Locke Cole, you've behavior here is extremely disruptive. You've been reverted by myself and 109.76.200.55 and yet you still revert without starting a discussion. You've opposed the move in April and you posted a comment 5 days later which @Fourthords explained why it is named the way it is. Your insistence on your style is trying to game the system after you failed at the RM. To be clear, I'm not reverting you now again as I know you'll revert a 4th time and find yourself blocked. Please understand that what you are doing is incorrect and correct the target. As an aside I'll say, that I too wish that works would be titled exactly how their author wanted, but that isn't what the MoS says. Gonnym (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

"Of" should be lowercase so "Cost of Living" is correct per our naming conventions on Wikipedia. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

MoS conventions ("guidelines") do not override site-wide policy ("verifiability"). We do not get to make things different because we like them a different way than what our sources say, that's called "original research". Another policy, in case we're keeping count, that's two core policies being violated so someone doesn't have to be blinded by an uppercase "Of". —Locke Cole • t • c 18:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Gonnym: MOS cannot override WP:V. Regardless, the article is living at the "correct" (per MoS) title, noting the actual title in the article (which even some secondary sources appear to pick up on, despite Wikipedia getting it wrong for over a decade and likely contributing to the incorrect title propagating in the wild). I won't revert a 4th time, but as I live and breathe I also won't stand idly by while people try to tell me the sky is red when it's very clearly blue (see circular reporting / citogensis). —Locke Cole • t • c 18:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(capitalization)#Titles_of_works and MOS:CT are very clear in this instance: prepositions, such as "of" are never capitalized on Wikipedia, and this isn't a Star Trek Into Darkness situation. A medium can choose how they wish to display their title/use their own capitalization methodology, but for our purposes on Wikipedia, "Cost of Living" is how it should be presented. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we should use "Cost of Living" for the title. Some shows list the episode title in all caps – would we capitalize the title then? Of course not; it's for style and shouldn't dictate our writing standards. Also, the Star Trek website uses "Cost of Living" in its database article for the episode. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Why are you engaging in OR and assuming it's a stylistic choice? And why would our stylistic choice override what the source material says? —Locke Cole • t • c 20:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Why should we engage in OR and assume "Of" is deliberately capitalized instead of a typo? The other sources listed here seem to agree that the title uses "of", not "Of", and Wikipedia should reflect the consensus of published works. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Because there are multiple episodes where they did this? You're still doing the OR thing by assuming it was a typo. Do you have a source that has the studio or the titlist admitting they mistakenly capitalized words that shouldn't have been? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

MoS does not override our need to use verifiable information. A group of editors deciding that in this instance we can toss verifiability out the window doesn't mean we just tag WP:V with {{historical}}. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The words making up the title is verifiable, basically what would be spoken when saying the title, and that is all WP:V cares about. How it is stylized when written is a manual of style consideration for each publication that reports it to make. The Wikipedia manual of style is clear on how to capitalize titles of works. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Please don't invoke WP:V without clearly showing your sources, you know irrefutably verifying them not just stating them. For anyone else who would appreciate an easy way to check, Memory Alpha includes an image of the episode title card, and capital-O "Cost Of Living" was used onscreen, but even the nerds at Memory Alpha title their episode article as "Cost of Living". (Direct link to title card image.) It is a very good thing to verify that the content is correct "Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up" but content (information) and style (presentation) are two separate things. The style guide says to write "of" and no one else seems to have any enthusiasm for going against the style guide on this. Even if I agreed with you, it would not be a good idea to make this change for only one or two episodes, there would need to be a consistent approach to the whole List_of_Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation_episodes. -- 109.76.144.221 (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that the "of" vs. "Of" is a stylistic decision that Wikipedia should be deciding for themselves when we have clear evidence that one or the other was used. Were this a subject where the episode and all copies were destroyed and we only had 2nd hand knowledge to work from, I would agree with using whatever style fits (unless reliable secondary sources could show that one or the other was used). I've no idea why anyone views having accurate titles as a "bad thing" beyond their precious eyeballs seeing an uppercase "Of". —Locke Cole • t • c 05:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Locke Cole Can you quote exactly which part of WP:V correlates to having to use identical grammar? I'm only looking for a verbatim quote, nothing else. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Alex 21: This page in a nutshell: Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. The current title is "made up". —Locke Cole • t • c 05:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

No the current title is well sourced, how it is capitalized conforms to how titles are presented in this publication. The capitalization variations don't change the title. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Locke Cole That quote does not refer to grammar at all. Can you quote exactly which part of WP:V correlates to having to use identical grammar, specifically mentioning grammar? -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Please note that Locke is doing this on another article too[1]. I don't appreciate this unilateral and inconsistent approach. Not only is Locke misunderstanding W:V and making a mountain out of a stylistic molehill, Locke is failing to work with people on this and take any sort of a collaborative approach. Iff people wanted to make exceptions and do things the way Locke is pushing and use the same capitalization verbatim as it appeared in the original episodes I think that would require agreement at the WP:STARTREK project level, but Locke does not have even one person agreeing with the change on this one article. -- 109.76.138.196 (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)