Talk:I, Borg

Fair use rationale for Image:ST-TNG I, Borg (Brig).jpg

Image:ST-TNG I, Borg (Brig).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BorgScoutCrashed.jpg

Image:BorgScoutCrashed.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Influence in other media

Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun: Fire Storm

a cyborg was used to infect Cabals forces with a virus, that particular cyborg was named Huey —Preceding unsigned comment added by FDD19 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I, Borg or I Borg

Different sources appear to include/omit the comma. StarTrek.com includes the comma, but I've been informed (though have no way of verifying) that the episode title card does not (then again, that could be a production error). Memory Alpha does not include the comma, though the site, being a wiki, can't ben considered a reliable source. I perused their article on the episode and unfortunately didn't find anything regarding the comma, though there was a lively discussion on the article's talk page. Based on WP's sourcing standards I think we're obligated to include the comma, but I'd welcome additional thoughts on the subject. Doniago (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

→The title card of the episode itself does not include a comma, I would consider that good enough evidence to remove the comma. It is awkward though, because the title is clearly an allusion to I, Robot. If someone were to find a copy of some production documents, maybe a script or a writer's guild stub we could use that as clear basis for whether it was I, Borg or I Borg. I had put in an edit that it was known with and without the comma, but it was deleted a while ago. 11:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I added the point to the article but was reverted on the grounds that the conflict is "trivial". I don't really understand this logic -- I don't normally edit articles on individual episodes of TV shows, but what I added, based merely on the fact that it is a real-world discussion of the topic and its reception among fans, is less trivial than the majority of content already in this article and the majority of other such articles. TNG had around 150 episodes, and very few of these have something about them as interesting to our readers as the episode's title card including a different title from what a lot of secondary sources give it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

To me it seems trivial because it's essentially a discussion over a comma. I mean, does it matter that much? Have any third-party sources made note of this issue or how contentious it may be among fans? We need something that does more than simply point out the discrepancy; otherwise I think we're given the issue undue weight. DonIago (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

You are right, of course, but I think arguing based on WP:WEIGHT that something doesn't belong in the article on one of a total of over 700 episodes in the franchise that a one-sentence description of the discrepancy over how the title is displayed is a little silly. If Wikipedia still didn't allow independent articles on individual episodes of TV shows (didn't that used to be the policy?) then I would agree that it would be undue in a four-line summary in a list of episodes, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a Wikipedia article on any piece of media where the title has been displayed several different ways in its native language and this discrepancy is not discussed. The video I linked is a comedy review, so it is likely tongue-in-cheek when it implies the episode was deliberately not alluding to that Asimov work but to the series of Apple devices that started appearing over a decade later, but it probably would not be hard to find a source that discusses the problem in a more serious manner. It's original research until I can find it in a source, but seems almost certain that it was referring to I, Robot and that the lack of a comma was an accidental misprint (hence official sources later inserting the comma).

Another concern is that the infobox uses the comma-less title, but everywhere else we include the comma. Should this be explained, or should the infobox just be edited to match the rest of the article?

Most of that is just my two cents, though.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the infobox should probably be consistent with the rest of the article, unless the documentation for the infobox clearly establishes that it shouldn't be...that seems unlikely to me, though.

Individual episode articles should have information to establish that the episode is independently notable. I've gotten into this argument over Star Trek episode articles before, actually. While any Star Trek series is notable overall, that doesn't mean that every single episode is notable, and consequently it doesn't mean, to me at least, that every episode merits its own article. See Stargate: SG-1 where many episodes don't have their own articles...in my opinion, rightly so.

But yeah, the easiest way to resolve this would be to find a source that gave the matter some discussion. DonIago (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)