Talk:Star Trek: The Next Generation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters[edit]

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)

Change reference to "gender neutral" so it is accurate[edit]

As used in TOS, "man" referred to mankind which is gender neutral. Mankind refers to the human race. The human race includes women. The mention of "gender neutral" should be more accurate. " Patrick Stewart's voice-over introduction during each episode's opening credits stated the starship's purpose, updated from the original to represent an open-ended "mission". It also was a misguided attempt to be gender-neutral given "man" in the original version referred to mankind - the entire human race. Every major dictionary defines mankind, with "man" a shortened version, as something similar to "the human race; human beings collectively without reference to sex; humankind. " (talk) 08:18, 3 Oct 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

I'm no expert in either Star Trek or Wikipedia, but at the end of Star Trek VI, when Kirk changes his wording from 'no man' to 'no one', it's to reflect his making peace with the Klingon race and implying that the future of the mission was in collaboration with other alien races, rather than it being about making it gender neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The season synopses are not very thorough or consistent.[edit]

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)
Do you assert that because there is an other source of data on Star Trek it is no longer necessary to keep wikipedia updated? Gilly027 (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, there's only so many intelligent and motivated people willing to work on Star Trek articles. Might as well have them all work in one place, coordinating their efforts, rather than trying to build two redundant projects. Vranak (talk) 00:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Judson Scott as a notable guest star.[edit]

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 (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 (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)

Navbox ??[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 (talkcontribs) 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)

Mature Themes and Controversy[edit]

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)

Cleaning up plot summary[edit]

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)

  • Shouldn't that assumption be left up to the reader ? Mlpearc MESSAGE 02:35, 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)
1) If Tashsa Yar's death was tragic or not. 2) The first and last episodes intent. Mlpearc MESSAGE 04:16, 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)


WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copy edited by Mlpearc, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 03 June 2010. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
  • All links updated.

Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 01:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, no pictures?[edit]

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? (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)

Critical Reception[edit]

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. (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Notable guest appearances[edit]

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)

Jean Simmons notable guest appearance[edit]

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 (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Banned/censored episodes?[edit]

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. (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))

Cast/character tables[edit]

Ideally, the cast/character section would be in prose, or at least bulleted prose. Maybe one day it will get there. As an interim step, or at least to clean it up a bit and remove trivia, I propose remove the "other positions held" column (trivial "side-trips" in an episode or two really aren't essential to a springboard list of these characters) and rank (again, trivial information). Comments? --EEMIV (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I came to the article today planning to remove the "other positions held" column -- but, I saw a) an IP editor had done that and b) another editor reverted is as "vandalism." So, let me again pose the question: what objection is there to removing trivial "other positions held" from the character list? (If time permits, I may just go ahead and prose-ify the character list.) --EEMIV (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Just a bad edit summary on my part. I thought the change had to at least be discussed, but forgot to follow up on it. I for one have no objections to the change you suggest.--Atlan (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Cool -- thanks! I'm firing up at least a bulleted list for the major characters now, and I'll draw some hiring/character encapsulation from their individual articles as a next step. --EEMIV (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Feedback and revision welcome. I'm not quite certain it's worth including Keiko O'Brien, Nursa Ogawa, and maybe even Gowron in the list of recurring characters. I don't recall O'Brien having much of an important role in the show. Ogawa was prominent in a single episode (kind of two, if you include "Genesis"), but otherwise unremarkable. Gowron might be worth including -- he had big episodes, but wasn't as particularly developed as the remaining characters on the list. Regardless: feedback/comments? --EEMIV (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm restoring the bulleted list of cast/characters. The removing edit points out that the table is consistent with other Trek series. However, it's more appropriate that presentation of cast and characters be more in line with e.g. any number of the film, TV, and media good and featured articles. The table also leaves out some worthwhile production (i.e. encyclopedic) information, and in its place offers some inconsequential trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 12:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Pinging this yet again. A newly registered account's first edit has been to restore the table. This is a bit silly. If the table is such a good idea, despite the issues raised above, have the gumption to speak up here. Would appreciate input from other article-watchers for their perspective. --EEMIV (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I am all for a table showing characters as it is able to show character information like when a character was in a series at a glance. MisterShiney 17:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


hey guys, I found that Ray Walston, AKA Boothby in Star Trek: The Next Generation and Star Trek: Voyager is not given his due in the TNG page. i'm not great at editing yet.(i mostly patrol edits by others to make sure it isn't spam) Billycop32 (talk) 05:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

While (fake) versions of Boothby had several appearances in Voyager, his one appearance and handful of references in TNG don't seem to warrant inclusion alongside more prominent guest stars and recurring characters. --EEMIV (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

No pictures?[edit]

Not a single picture? Copyright issues? --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


This is the only abbreviation I have ever seen used for it. In any case, what possible harm can it do to provide an alternative with which many people are familiar? Risssa (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I have never seen this abbreviation, harm would be an incorrect entry, Star Trek: The Original Series shows one abbreviation as Star Trek: TOS which is widely used and Star Trek: TNG would work for me, but just ST:TNG (to a non-observer) wouldn't mean much. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
How many examples of ST:TNG would you need to convince you that it is a very common abbreviation, at least here in the US? There are zillions of ST:TNGs all over the net and have been since the show started. In fact, here's one now: "But still - come on, Paramount, stop (expletiving) the fans! If you're going to re-re-release ST:TNG, then DO SOMETHING with it!" ( Here's another spoofing the show: "Subject: ST:TNG The Lost Episodes" ( And yet a third describing a pinball game about the show: "Common Abbreviations: STTNG, ST:TNG, STNG" ( Try googling it yourself. And besides, TNG doesn't mean anything to non-observers either. Risssa (talk) 06:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to go change this now. I don't know who the person who removed it the first time is, but the fact that he/she had never heard of ST:TNG is not a valid reason to remove it. And personally, I think anyone who is seriously interested in ST:TNG, would want to know this information, just another cultural tidbit of Star Trek lore from the people who were there when it started and who talked about it endlessly on Usenet. Google ST:TNG, there are thousands of examples. Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 04:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Wil Wheaton's reason for leaving the show[edit]

From the entry: "According to Wheaton, he wanted to leave the show because he was frustrated by having to fit other roles around his Trek schedule despite his character's diminishing role."

I thought it had to do with the numerous letter writing campaigns asking the producers to remove his character from the show and the fact that he got booed at several ST cons. I can see why his information says he was just too busy to bother with Trek anymore but surely there are more objective sources than Wil himself. Risssa (talk) 06:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we should have another viewpoint, but I just looked through four pages of Google returns and none of them were reasons on Wheaton's leaving ST:TNG that WEREN'T from Wheaton himself. Hardly exhaustive, but I'm not sure what to do... Ckruschke (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
I was watching something about him a few weeks ago that said he did have a number of other shows he was doing so I think it is entirely possible that this is the truth, that he was too busy. Maybe he was having to choose between ST:TNG a few times a season and other movies or TV shows (I have no idea what happened to him after he left ST). And maybe he was helped out the door just a bit by the fans.... Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 04:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
From the FAQ on his own website, he left because he continually had to turn down too many film roles; he was offered a role in Valmont, but it would have overrun into the first week of the new Star Trek season, and he'd miss the first episode (which was, according to the producers, a Wesley-centric episode). He declined the film (he was, after all, under contract to Paramount at the time) only to learn several days before the new Trek season began that they'd written Wesley out of the supposedly 'Wesley-centric' episode entirely. Here's the bulk of the account: (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Gates McFadden was fired after the first season, rehired for the third season[edit]

The article as of April 6, 2014 states that Gates McFadden left the show after the first season to pursue film roles. A book dated from 2003 is listed as the reference. I've just got done watching the special features from the season 2 Blu-Ray release (which was released on December 2, 2012) and Patrick Stewart and Gates McFadden herself state that she was actually fired after the first season because she was complaining that the scripts were too sexist. She says she learned about it the Monday after the season 1 wrap party and was very surprised because Roddenberry had told her she was the third most popular character. Wil Wheaton also states that she was fired and that the entire cast was terrified. These statements can be found on the new documentary for the Blu-ray release, and it's called Making It So: Continuing Star Trek: The Next Generation, Part 2: New Life And New Civilizations.

If their statements aren't good enough I have some other sources. Here's one from The Star Trek Guide <url=>. Here's one from an interview with Rick Berman, the producer, it aired in 2006.<url=> He states that Maurice Hurley who was the head writer at that time disliked her and wanted her gone, and after Maurice left Rick brought Gates back for season 3.

Can someone take a look at this and edit the article? I forgot how to cite articles, it's been a while, and I don't want to mess something up. Dionyseus (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. Ylee (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Star Trek: The Next Generation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in numbering[edit]

I'm not 100% familiar with Star Trek, so there may well be in universe explanations for this - The intro says the ships is "the sixth to bear the name" Enterprise, but then the episodes section says that it is either the "fifth Federation vessel to bear the name" or the "seventh starship by that name" - while I appreciate that this may depend on what you count in universe, can we please have some out of universe consistency so that it makes sense to those (like me) not as familiar with the series? (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

So it is technically the fifth Federation ship to be called Enterprise. However, there was the NX-01, a pre-Federation ship as seen in Star Trek: Enterprise which makes the sixth. Now, they could be including the Space Shuttle Enterprise or that pre-ST:ENT ship called Enterprise which is sometimes seen in models in the films, but never actually as a proper ship with a named crew etc in canon. Miyagawa (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)