Talk:Encounter at Farpoint

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Encounter at Farpoint has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic star Encounter at Farpoint is part of the Star Trek: The Next Generation (season 1) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
October 8, 2012 Good article nominee Listed
October 15, 2012 Peer review Reviewed
August 10, 2016 Good topic candidate Promoted
Current status: Good article

error in trivia. Should be augmented[edit]

In the trivia section there's a nitpick stating that when Wesley came off the holodec wet, the water should have disappeared the moment he stepped off the holodec. This is untrue. This has also occured later in the episode as the same Crusher nailed Captain Picard with a snowball thrown off the holodec as the doors were opening. As stated earlier in the episode, the goods and items created on the holodec are created with a technology identical to the transporter beam, rearranging molecules to create whatever they desire. Now, for the more complex organisms, like Humans, they probably are indeed too complex to exist without the holodec constantly rearranging them. But for something as simple as water? A basic element? Well that would be no problem for the holodec to create as accruately as, say, a replicator would create food. And it should be noted a replicator works along very identical technology as well. Smokachu13 1:00, 01 May 2007

Marine Corps Insignia[edit]

I edited out the note about Colonel North and Q's Marine Corps Uniform. The information was incorrect: Q's insignia was that of a Captain, not a Colonel.

Production number[edit]

The article lists Encounter at Farpoint with production codes 101 and 102. However, I saw the episode on DVD today listed with production code (or "production number", whichever is correct) 721. Memory Alpha also uses 721. Which is correct? Does it have something to do with the fact that it is a double episode, and the two episodes combined having it's own production number? --Gosub 00:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing that Paramount has different episode numbering systems for 2-hour episodes when they are split. I don't work for the studio, so take it with a pinch of salt.--BigMac1212 02:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


i reverted the move as this was the only episode outside of the Star Trek Naming Convention. This page should remain here at Encounter at Farpoint (TNG episode) unless the convention is overturned and someone can take the time to move all the episodes Discordance 18:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


I watched this episode last night (split in two, as described), and the bowl-of-apples incident was different as recorded here.

Here's a copy of the script (of the scene that I saw, at least): (search for "apple" :))

The interaction took place in Zorn's office, not in the market, and only himself and Riker were present. The magic apples appeared during a conversation about the creation of Farpoint station.

I have no idea where the original poster got their information from. Possibly drugs. Dave420 19:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I warrant the user got the apples incident confused with later in the epsode when Riker, Beverly Crusher, and her son Wesley were at market and a bolt of red cloth materialized a gold pattern after hearing her suggestion. Smokachu13 1:00, 01 May 2007

It's the same way in the 90 minute version on the DVD. The scene happens in Zorn's office. Davhorn 13:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It's Not Really "Trivia"[edit]

I think that whoever put together these articles has done an outstanding job, but I would like to make this comment:

The information under the "Trivia" section of each article is not really trivia. It should be called by its proper name: "Nitpicking."

Please don't get me wrong; I like nitpicking, especially nitpicking Trek. I just don't think it's fair to call it "Trivia."

My two cents.

Roger Clendening II St. Petersburg, FL

That's exactly what trivia is - "matters or things that are very unimportant, inconsequential, or nonessential; trifles; trivialities". It doesn't mean "interesting stuff you might not know" :) Dave420 19:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Request Move[edit]

Request Move poll and discussion is located at this talk page.

Different versions[edit]

I believe that there are two versions of "Encounter at Farpoint": a single segment lasting 2 hours and 2 1-hour episodes. If so, are there differences? --BigMac1212 (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Never seen it like that. It's definitely two 45-minute episodes. It may also be sold on DVD or something as a single merged story, but I sort of doubt it. (talk) 05:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Your right about seeing the two different versions but there is no difference in them. As one is the episode split into two, and the other is the two episodes joined together to have no gaps in the middle. Hope that helps MattyC3350 (talk) 05:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


"In a way, it was also the start of a tradition that the first episode of each new Star Trek series (set in the 24th century) include an appearance by a prominent character from a previous Star Trek series"

As far as i know star trek voyager didnt include any real notable characters aside from a deep space nine frengi, and enterprise didnt include anyway aside from the actor from star trek first contact, should this be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

If the Ferengi to whom you are referring is Quark, then I submit he qualifies as a prominent character. Enterprise was set earlier so it wouldn't be included anyway. LarryJeff (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Encounter at Farpoint/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Montanabw (talk · contribs) 21:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Saw some comma splices and other punctuation concerns, places where wording is awkward, all minor, but I think another copyedit run-through by the editors working on this article would be wise. Also, though the series is from the USA, this article is written in UK English and uses dd/mm/yy date format also a UK format, which doesn't seem appropriate for this particular topic. (For Dr. Who, it would probably be perfect). I don't want to get into a US/UK English spat, but wiki guidelines do suggest an article such as this one probably is best done in US English. Montanabw(talk) 22:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Pretty well referenced in terms of quantity, but for quality, see comments on sources below. Concern with blogs and WP:ONESOURCE for about the first 2/3 to 3/4 of the article. Montanabw(talk) 22:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Image in infobox has appropriate fair use rationale at image page, but lacks a hidden text note to this effect in the article, not a huge deal, but a useful courtesy. The Picard image has a wonky tag in commons, may want to check to see if that bit can be cleaned up. Montanabw(talk) 22:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  7. Overall:

Initial comments: Am placing this article on hold to see if some of the references can be expanded or reviewed. While checklinks lists all web links as live, I am concerned about use and quality; several appear to be blogs, which do not pass WP:RS, notably I think the "reception" section also fails to distinguish the reviews at the time from those (again, I'm picking on the AV club in particular, but also Den of Geek) that were written over a decade after the series ended. Perhaps you could split this section into a paragraph on the initial reception of the episode as the pilot at the time it aired, and then a second paragraph discussing how it held up in retrospect once the entire series concluded. I'm also a bit concerned about the heavy reliance on a single source, Nemecek, for nearly everything else in the article but the reviews, it's 18 of the first 21 footnotes. While I do not question that Nemecek IS a good source, such intense reliance raises concerns with close paraphrasing and it would help to have a few more sources that can be directly verified online. I'll review other aspects later, but this really jumped out at me. Montanabw(talk) 22:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I'll work through and address your points. I've added a line at the start of the second paragraph in Reception to indicate that the remaining reviews are made a while after the episode and series aired. I've got access to the Reeves-Stevens book, so I'll see if I can replace some of the Nemecek sources with those in order to make it more of an equal split. As for the AV Club, well, it has a print magazine and Zack Handlen has been covered by other print sources here. Den of Geek is a entertainment website run by Dennis Publishing, as stated here. Miyagawa (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Does Paramount or another mainstream site contain episode descriptions? May also be good to add a few links of that sort; I don't doubt that the hardcopy books are accurate, but it's good to toss in a few web sources too -- in a perfect world, everything would be on google books. As for the blogs such as AV club and den of geek, I think my biggest concern is that we aren't just talking about review at the end of the series, we are talking reviews over a DECADE after the end of the series, and those from rather "in-universe" sources that. Seriously, didn't a university professor desperate to publish or perish ever do a meta-analysis of ST:TNG? (smile). I'm saying that these sources might be OK for GA, but they won't be for FA. Montanabw(talk) 23:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I've added some more to the article after digging around this afternoon. I searched the subscription only sources I have access to and added a brief point from a book on the impacts of Star Trek, although most of those sources were very non-episode specific and so I didn't include them. However, I managed to add a home media section as I found decent sources for the VHS, DVD and Blu Ray releases. Then I stumbled across an absolute gem of an Entertainment Weekly article on the creation of TNG and the run up to the pilot episode, so I've doubled up on sources using that added information from the article which wasn't in the Nemecek source at all. I've left the single source banner in at the moment because I'd rather have your agreement to remove it first, but that section is now split across three significant sources. Just realised the memories of the future source is formatted differently to the other multi-page books and I'll fix that now and then run the dash fixer script. Miyagawa (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Good to see. Nice expansions. Overall an improvement in scope as well. I'd like you to give it one more overall copyedit, maybe after letting it rest a day or so; I see a few things that are a little clunky, nothing huge, just the copyedit for that elusive "sparkling prose" - a scan for anything redundant in different sections, a review of the lede to be sure it reflects the current content (now that you've added more) a check for undue weight or unnecessary trivia (the three breasts thing was amusing, but not sure the quote necessary; the John De Lancie bit with Roddenberry was amusing, the Wheaton quote maybe a bit long -  ;-) ), etc. I might take a small whack at the prose after you've had a chance to catch anything you want to tweak. It's almost there. Montanabw(talk) 23:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for leaving those notes, they've been a great deal of help. I've made the modifications as requested. As for the Patrick Stewart image, it does have the correct tags as far as I can tell. It was cropped down form a shot of him standing next to military personnel and was posted on the Army images site here. The site it was posted on has been archived here. Miyagawa (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I made a couple small tweaks and am pleased to say Green tickY pass! Montanabw(talk) 23:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


There is a typo in this article. In the infobox, it mentions "Grappler Zorn". In the Plot paragraph, it is "Groppler Zorn". One of these isn't correct. I don't know which is correct so I didn't make the edit.Xblkx (talk) 02:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Dunno why it took two years for someone to respond and fix this, but I've done it. "Groppler" matches the spelling in the opening credits. -- Heath (talk) 05:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)