Jump to content

Talk:Lists of Star Trek episodes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by IanManka (talk | contribs) at 21:56, 27 December 2006 (→‎Requested move: further discussion can be found at...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconStar Trek Redirect‑class
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the redirect attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
RedirectThis redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Naming conventions poll

There is an ongoing poll and Request for Comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RfC Episode Article Naming conventions which has direct relevance to how to title the Star Trek episode articles, meaning that based on how this poll comes out, many Star Trek episodes may get moved around. All interested editors are therefore strongly encouraged to participate, to ensure that your wishes are incorporated into the consensus process. --Elonka 22:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move all. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 07:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC) The Man Trap (TOS episode)The Man Trap[reply]
One of Our Planets is Missing (TAS episode)One of Our Planets is Missing
Q-Less (DS9 episode)Q-Less
The 37s (Voyager episode)The 37s
The Andorian Incident (Enterprise episode)The Andorian Incident
Encounter at Farpoint (TNG episode)Encounter at Farpoint

Articles should be moved to remove unneeded disambiguation. This is in accordance with the guidelines WP:TV-NC and WP:D. Articles which do not need to be disambiguated shouldn't be disambiguated.

Important note: - This Request Move includes just one episode article from each of the six Star Trek seasons. There are many more Star Trek Episode articles which are unnessasarily disambiguated. If this Request Move concludes with support for moving these articles, then i will be going through all the Star Trek Episode articles and moving all the articles where there is unneeded disambiguation.

I felt there's no reason to include every episode article into this Request Move - it is very unlikely that someone will support/oppose the Beyond the Farthest Star (TAS episode)Beyond the Farthest Star move but then not support/oppose the One of Our Planets is Missing (TAS episode)One of Our Planets is Missing move. Having dozens of moves listed in this Request Move (or having dozens of Request moves) is unneeded beauracracy and mess, and i want this closed ASAP (i.e. as soon as the 5 days are up and a consensus is reached here). --`/aksha 10:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes

  1. Support, of course, as the nominator. --`/aksha 10:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support per nom, WP:TV-NC, and the three month discussion on the topic. -- Ned Scott 10:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per WP:DAB, for the same reason that we name the article Alanis Morissette rather than Alanis Morissette (Canadian singer). >Radiant< 10:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, per WP:DAB and WP:TV-NC. Preemptive disambiguation continues to be a bad idea, and the arguments in favor of this example (viz. "context", "consistency", "precedent" and "WikiProject ownership") are all fatally flawed. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 17:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support all: Per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, per WP:DAB and WP:TV-NC TheDJ (talkcontribsWikiProject Television) 19:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, per WP:DAB and WP:TV-NC. --Serge 20:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, per WP:DAB and WP:TV-NC. Jay32183 23:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, per WP:TV-NC YAY!!!! Nohat 01:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support all. Exceptions are perfectly fine if supported by solid reasoning. No acceptable reasoning has been advanced to justify one here.  Anþony  talk  08:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support all per WP:DAB, and due to the extreme likelihood of these articles being accessed only through their context with Star Trek in general, and the individual series in particular. --BlueSquadronRaven 08:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support all, per guidelines mentioned, and also per my offended sense of style seeing "Where No Man Has Gone Before (TOS episode)" and "For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky (TOS episode)" and "Looking for par'Mach in All the Wrong Places (DS9 episode)". Morwen - Talk 23:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support all, per WP:DAB and WP:TV-NC. --Brian Olsen 01:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Comment: Two days into this move request, an outside observer might be tempted to close the request early under WP:SNOW, and understandably so (at this writing, the count is 11 support, 0 oppose). However, since this is related to a current ArbCom case, and since the normal 5-day period overlaps with Christmas, when many editors will not be checking Wikipedia very often, I suggest that even though it seems obvious which way this will go, potential closing admins leave the request open for a few days extra. We don't want anyone complaining that this move was done while the backs of less frequent editors were turned, and a few days' wait won't hurt anyone. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 10:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. A few extra days won't hurt, and rushing it might be causing more trouble then it's worth. TheDJ (talkcontribsWikiProject Television) 11:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Please note the fact that this move did not require administrator assistance. You didn't have to list this at WP:RM. As it states at the top of the page:

Before you begin, please note that requested moves are only for moving articles, and sometimes templates. It is not the place for the following:

Unobstructed, uncontroversial moves
Moves of this nature can be accomplished by any logged-in user whose registration was more than 4 days ago. Use the [move] tab located at the top of every page. See Help:Moving a page.

Doing this would have saved me a few minutes of my time that I could have spent helping other users on Wikipedia. Please read instructions before using any one of Wikipedia's request pages. Thank you very much for your future cooperation. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 08:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, I should note that I do approve of the efforts made to have a straw poll to gauge consensus. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 08:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, we know, and normally we would have just done the moves ourselves. Unfortunately this otherwise trivial matter has generated a three month debate and now an arbcom case. Had it not been for that, we would have just dived into the page moves. -- Ned Scott 08:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. The only reason i put them through Request Moves was because a certain editor has decided these kind of moves where causing some kind of wikipedia-wide mass disruption. I figured a Request Move would make it 'official'. But i guess even to the outside neutral observer, these moves are not contraversial. --`/aksha 09:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further discussion on this matter is available at User talk:IanManka#Star Trek episode page moves. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 21:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]