Talk:The City on the Edge of Forever

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

Guardian of Forever in Star Trek: New Voyages[edit]

It makes a prominent appearance in the fan-film along with the Planet Killer. It should be mentioned.DrWho42 05:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Also makes a cameo in the "Fallout" adventure game, as a random encounter, if I recall correctly. - 04:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Jumping to conclusions[edit]

This episode is notable in that it doesn't have a humorous ending, like most others. If I recall correctly. (That's a big if, by the way.) As I remember it, Kirk says, "Let's get the Hell out of here." That's the last line. Seems like this should be included in the article.

Well, if you read the page you'd see at the bottom that very line is quoted. Cyberia23 21:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay. You're right; I didn't see that. I'm just getting my feet wet with this site and its ways. I'm sure I'll make a few newbie style mistakes here and there. Sorry.

Along with not signing your posts. Odd, I didn't think that making assumptions about material before reading it was particularly a "newbie-style mistake". ;) Actually, most of the first and second season episodes had fairly serious endings. The campy humor wrapups were a plague of the Fred Freiberger-produced third season. Canonblack 23:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Verification of Ellison's original and one of the show credits[edit]

Can we get a source for the "Trivia" bullet point about the differences between Ellison's original and Fontana's shooting script? As described, Ellison's original sounds sadistic and not at all Star Trek material (they stalked Edith in the criminal sense, the Guardians' punishment for one murder seems excessively cruel, the idea that a Starfleet officer would sideline as a drug dealer — or drug addict, as the Memory Alpha article has it — goes against the depiction of the Federation as a practical utopia), and I have a hard time believing that that was the version that won the WGA. Also, the Memory Alpha article has stuntman Cary Loftin and not Eddie Paskey driving the truck. This is confirmed by the IMDB entry for the episode, in which Paskey is given credit for the role of "Lt. Leslie". Neither was apparently credited in the actual show credits. Canonblack 23:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember all those details, but the 'Jewels of Sound' drug thing was in Ellison's script. The "not at all Star Trek" of it is why it had to be substantially rewritten.
—wwoods 00:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but what's your source? We need some kind of verification. It doesn't sound likely that a "name" writer would be hired to work for the show and then have his work completely rewritten. Canonblack 00:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
That's the nature of television--"name" writers are rewritten all the time--Chris Carter rewrote Stephen King's script for "The X Files." As for the veracity of the trivia points... I can verify them (hell, I wrote, rewrote, or edited some of them). I own a copy of Ellison's script, as well as a copy of D. C. Fontana's "Shooting Script." Ellison's version did indeed win the WGA award for best dramatic script, one hour, continuing series. It's grittier and more likely the type of script that other writers admire and give awards to than the aired version. Also, I would imagine that writers like to give awards to original work, not work rewritten by producers. Sir Rhosis 05:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, the trivia doesn't say anything about "stalking Edith in a criminal sense," it just says they spy on her. They do indeed spy on her, learn where she lives, watch her movements, in Ellison's script, simply to learn more about her, to perhaps gain a clue about what she will do to set time wrong, or even if she is indeed the focal points the Guardians mentioned. Sir Rhosis 05:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the tripe posting, but one final thing that may help others appreciate the differences between Ellison's original and Fontana's final shooting script. I write reviews of TOS scripts, and a review of both versions of the "City" script can be found at this site:
Anyone may click on my hperlinked real name there and email me questions so as not to clutter up this talk page. Sir Rhosis 05:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Complaining that a statement is "unsourced" overlooks the fact that any statements about Ellison's original or the rewrite can be confirmed or denied simply by looking at the sources -- the original has been available in a paperpack for almost 15 years. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Problems with this article[edit]

Kirk informs Scotty that if they do not return, the landing party will have to jump through the portal to an era of their choosing to survive.

That's not wholly incorrect, and what I'm about to write is a bit speculative but it appears to be valid given the context. Kirk says, "Scotty, when you think you've waited long enough.... Each of you will have to try it. Even if you fail, you'll be alive in some past world somewhere." Kirk is apparently telling Scotty, Uhura, and the two security men that if Kirk and Spock fail to complete the mission, they should try to do so -- to go back in time and fix whatever McCoy screwed up. "Even if [they] fail" to stop McCoy, "at least [they'll] be alive."

Meanwhile Edith nurses McCoy, who is slowly coming to his senses but still thinks everything is an illusionary side effect of the cordrazine overdose. He tells her who he is and where he is from.

He says, "I am Leonard McCoy, senior medical officer aboard the U.S.S. Enterprise." He doesn't explicitly tell her he's from the future, which the article sort of implies.

Kirk takes a step or two in her direction instinctively, and freezes when Spock says, "Jim, NO!"

Spock calls out, "No, Jim!"

Temporal Inconsistency[edit]

Bum dying[edit]

While this episode wraps up pretty well elsewhere, there is a bit of a problem in that McCoy's phaser has disintegrated a random person in 1930's New York. Logically, this will change the future (however slightly), and 200 years later, somebody important may suddenly be missing a part of their family tree (for all we know, he's Kirk's great-great-grandfather). 05:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

  • The concept of backwards time travel is scientifically bogus, so looking for inconsistencies in episodes and films that use that as a theme is redundant. Also, the guy who disintegrated himself might well have died 5 minutes later anyway, from the effects of whatever hootch he was drinking. Wahkeenah 12:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
First of all, backwards time-travel is not necessarily impossible. Proving a negative is "scientifically bogus", so your statement is also scientifically bogus. Backward time travel is currently theorized, at the quantum level. But quantum teleportation was limited to a single atom a few years ago, now it has been done on an object a few hundred thousand atoms in size.
Also, even if the bum died five minutes later, it may have become a significant five minutes. Or he may live another thirty years and have nothing of significant effect happen. But the three (Bones, Kirk and Spock) may have interacted with someone else that could have become significant. That the Guardian stated that "all is at it was" (or significantly similar) means that the other changes made were not significant. There is a theory of time that it is like a river and its course can only be changed at certain critical points. Edith was critical, but the other people they interacted with weren't (or weren't pushed enough). But since it is fiction, the better explanation is that this is how the writers wanted it to happen. (We probably agree on this paragraph.) Val42 04:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Stephen Hawking has explained why backwards time travel doesn't make sense. Time is a vector. Obviously, anything can be theorized. But backwards time travel, at least for organic beings, is inherently illogical. It creates the potential for paradoxes that require even more and wilder theories to cover... just like they had to invent spheres-within-spheres to explain the retrograde motion of the planets in a "geocentric universe". As one of my old math professors once said, "If you start with invalid assumptions, you are liable to get interesting results." They are missing the most obvious temporal paradox, which is that if there is no Enterprise up in the sky, then there is no way for Kirk and Spock to be there, either. Time travel stories are entertaining, for sure, but are about as logical as Superman's capability of flight. Wahkeenah 04:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I like time travel stories; they're like intellectual candy. I'm not saying that backwards time travel is possible, but I'm also not dismissing it outright.
Tell me, if we had an example of a human with flight powers like Superman, but without further complicating it with his other powers. Would science say that said person, who all could observe, didn't exist because they couldn't explain how he flies? Val42 04:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The "fan speculation" is reversed from what I remember, an article in one of the Star Trek fan essays books (one which came out after Star Trek IV). The idea was that the bum's son, distraught about the disappearance of his father, eventually causes the death of Roddenberry, then a young LAPD officer; thus, the bum's death constitutes the separation point between our universe, where Star Trek is a TV show, and the one where Trek actually happens. (The article envisions some interesting scenes, such as Kirk and company time-traveling to 1986 San Francisco as in Star Trek IV, only to be immediately recognized by hordes of Star Trek fans.) I will try to locate the particular book sometime to verify my memory, and update the page to match (unless someone else beats me to it). John Darrow 05:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, found it, it's an article entitled "The Disappearing Bum -- A Fun Look at Time Travels in Star Trek" by Jeff Mason, published in The Best of Trek 16: From the Magazine for Star Trek Fans (1991) and again in The Best of The Best of Trek II (1992). John Darrow 08:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I just watch it because it's a TV show and I leave it at that :P Cyberia23 05:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thinking about time travel from the human perspective is fairly silly. From a physics point of view, paradox occurs the moment a single thing in history is changed, from the smallest particle on up. At the end of the day, either the Universe will put up with that sort of nonsense, or it won't. Humans don't really work much into it.  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:00, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems with backwards time travel (which is currently believed to be theoretically possible, but no further back than the point in time at which a receiving device has been built) is that it permits something to be created without the expenditure of energy to create it, breaking the law of conservation of energy. This is commonly called the "bootstrap paradox". I call it "entropic contradiction" (because creation requires the reduction of entropy).
For example... Suppose I returned to a time before Bach had written The Well-Tempered Clavier and handed him a copy. Bach now has possession of the work, without anyone having had to expend effort to create it. A similar event occurs in Star Trek IV, when the reading glasses McCoy gave Kirk in Star Trek II are pawned. The glasses now enter a sort of "temporal loop", in which they exist, but were never created (McCoy having purchased them 200 years after they were pawned). WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

McCoy's phaser[edit]

In the article, it states somthing like McCoy was disarmed so he didn't have a phaser. But I remember that when he jumped the redshirts on the planet, he grabbed a phaser from one of them. Would someone who has the episode go and check to see which way it is. Val42 04:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't have the episode, and haven't seen it for awhile, but Bones certainly had a phaser when he got to earth in the 1930s, because that's how the street guy was able to vaporize himself, right? And don't take my apparent criticisms the wrong way... it's a great episode, one of the very best from the classic Trek era. Wahkeenah 04:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The Crew Abides[edit]

There are many logical errors and inconsistencies in the televised version. For one thing, the crew remains on the Guardian's planet when the Enterprise disappears.

I've completely rewritten the script from scratch to remove these problems, and correct most of the story's dramatic problems (such as how Edith is able to prevent the US from entering the war after Pearl Harbor). Those desiring a copy may contact me.

WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

        • This is not a logic error or inconsistency -- it is a major plot device. It is easy to understand that the area around the Guardian of Forever -- the source of the temporal waves -- insulates anyone who is nearby from those same temporal disturbances. Otherwise, how could anyone study the history available in the Guardian -- or even go through it (after another person went through it)? The Guardian obviously has a purpose -- to provide an entrance/exit to the past. Ergo, viewers have to be able to be near the Guardian. Ergo, if something changes, those viewers are temporarily insulated from the changes. The dialogue from the episode confirms this -- the Guardian tells the crew point-blank that if they go back in time and correct the problem, they will be returned and all will be as it was. This implies that this isn't the first time the Guardian has been involved in time travelers who study the past, make a change, then change it back. One might just as easily complain that if one went back in time far enough, one could prevent the creation of the Guardian. But then one couldn't use the Guardian to do that -- right? Even a small change in a fairly recent time could lead to a time travel incident where the Guardian is never created -- or destroyed prior to its most recent use. Those would be paradoxes unless each attempt splits off a new universe in the multiverse. Thus, all is not as it was -- that timeline is changed and instead Scotty's group remains in the new universe....and that new universe itself is changed again when Kirk and Spock are successful and return. Remember -- McCoy no longer had his illness. That's evidence that the universe they returned to is not the one they left -- similar, but not quite the same. Chesspride (talk) 07:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

      • BTW there is no attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 in the altered timeline. In the alterend timeline, Keeler meets with FDR in 1936 and -- presumably -- the Axis powers can tell that the US is in the clutches of a much stronger isolationist movement than in the original timeline. Thus, no oil embargo on Japan in 1940-41 -- meaning no rationale for an attack on Pearl Harbor. Few details are given...the war itself is delayed, takes longer and simply ends with a German victory. All that is needed is no FDR third term, no Lend Lease, no oil embargo on Japan, etc. and thus no US war effort on Germany. That would extend the war by at least a year if not two -- with an outcome far more favorable to the Axis -- especially if no financial or material support is given to the Soviet Union during that time. Chesspride (talk) 07:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


Ok. I turned this into a prose section. It says things about the dispute which are uncontroversial, it doesn't go deep into the Harlan-said, Gene-said stuff as I think it would be very easy to make a very badly written section about this. Morwen - Talk 20:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I once read the book Harlan wrote, incorporating the original script along with his many pithy comments about what was done with it. And, I'm sorry Harlan, but the finished product was a much better "Trek" episode than the original script was. It was like a "Star Trek" from a(nother) parallel universe. Wahkeenah 01:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

scene with bum dying cut everywhere?[edit]

so, was this removed from all versions of the remastered version, or just the short version of the remastered version? the way the article has it now it has it removed from all versions, which would be remarkable as i wasn't aware they were making any edits for the long version (which, to be fair, stations aren't airing much) which will end up on DVDs. Morwen - Talk 23:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

  • The article says that the bum's accidentally dying from McCoy's phaser would alter history, hence it's removal. But the Guardian said that if they were successful in their mission, history would be restored and "it would be as though none of you had ever gone.". There was no reason to remove the bum's death in that case.Mr. ATOZ 18:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Found at, every episode of Star Trek the original series is available to see at the cbs website. In the "City on the Edge of Forever" episode is shown with the bum vaporizing himself with McCoys phaser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmartin5 (talkcontribs) 16:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Kirk's final words[edit]

Very emotional line, Let's get the hell out of here by Kirk (when about to beam back up to the Enterprise). This parting line, should be added to the episode. GoodDay 00:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I should have read the whole article, that 'line' is there. GoodDay 00:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the claim that Roddenberry "repeatedly said" that the script had "Scotty dealing drugs"[edit]

The only source that I have ever seen that claimed the Gene Roddenberry went around stating that the original script had "Scotty dealing drugs" was writings and lectures from Harlan Ellison himself. In fact, in a lecture by Gene Roddenberry that I attended in 1982, Roddenberry addressed this subject directly. According to Roddenberry, he NEVER EVER SAID that the original script had "Scotty" dealing drugs. The original script did, however, have a guest-star crewmember dealing drugs, and Roddenberry, in the lecture I attended, confirmed that he strenuously objected to ANY ENTERPRISE CREWMEMBER dealing drugs, and again, he vehimently denied that he had ever claimed that he thought that crewmember was "Scotty". Indeed, the original script published in Ellison's own book has a random crewmember named "Beckwith", if I recall correctly, dealing illegal drugs on the Enterprise.

So, I modified the line in the "controversy" section in which the claim was made that Roddenberry "repeatedly said" that the script had Scotty dealing drugs. The paragraph in question correctly cited Ellison's book as the source, but to make it absolutely clear, I added the phrase "according to Ellison", before the claim that Roddenberry said that "Scotty" was dealing drugs in the script. Ellison himself is hardly an unbiased source on this and this is clearly a "he said / he said" dispute.

If someone can find a reference of someone OTHER THAN ELLISON confirming that Roddenberry repeatedly went around saying that the script had "Scotty dealing drugs" (as opposed to a random crewmember), then I'd be all for removing the phrase "according to Ellison" and putting the approporate citation.Fish Man 17:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

From The Star Trek Compendium by Allan Asherman, ©1989, p. 63:
In Ellison's version, the Enterprise crewman who went back through time and space was Beckwith, a drug addict. This meant that the episode revolved about a topic the network was reluctant to feature. It also meant that in 'Star Tre's' time drug addiction was still a problem, and that it was present among starship crews.
I for one have never heard the rumor that Scotty was dealing drugs. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
It was first mentioned by Roddenberry in an internal memo during the production of the episode itself. Miyagawa (talk) 10:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Why would Ellison, or others, care if it was Scotty or a random crew member? I'd think the dealing drugs part would be the issue. Sounds a bit like the your/you're arguement. (talk) 08:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


Now Ellison is suing Paramount over this episode: [1] (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised he's not suing Wikipedia over this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Credited Writer[edit]

Whatever arguments there are about who wrote this and who didn't include that and one side or the other, the credit accepted by the WGA as writer of the episode is Harlan Ellison. The WGA credit should be the only credit that matters. JoeD80 (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Because who actually wrote it matters. There are many a movie with any number of people sharing duties or taking over at different stages, the mere fact that a seperate orginization only chooses to recognize a single one doesn't change that. You can't have multiple directors, only one. Regardless how many different ones there are in reality. Saying that one group chooses to believe what rule they've written down should hold prescedent over reality is rather insane. Should we rewrite the "Godfather" article to only list the one director the director's guild lists, or should reality be used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

bum vs. homeless man[edit]

I believe "bum" to be pejorative [[2]] [[3]] and therefore changed it to the more neutral "homeless man". If somebody has evidence that bum is not pejorative and cannot be seen as such please free to change it again.

BTW, has anybody checked the link to John Harmon? It doesn't seem likely that he is the same as the football coach. --Robinandroid (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

But homeless might be innacurate. A person might be drunk and passed out in an alley, yet he or she might own a home (or 15 homes for that matter) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

  • We don't know that he is homeless, correct. So I changed to "drunken" and noted the name the character was called in the script and credits. Sir Rhosis (talk) 00:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Political Correctness[edit]

Has anyone asked or discovered WHY the 'bum' death was subsequently edited out? I strongly posit it was due to to the bane of political correctness. (See preceding entry) How dare the homeless be thought of as 'worthless' or not 'mattering'! (Though maybe the intention all along, to point out the 'cruelty'?) There are probably other reasons the scene was put in (think of plot context), but the later overriding 'unfairness' of killing a bum is unconscionable for today's crowd. Would anyone like to posit the scene was 'filler' to make the episode the proper length? Hell, the scene has even been left out of the plot for this entry!

I think the only reason this show has not been heavily 're-edited' for many, now unpopular, portrayals is that there are too many fans that would cause a 'stink'! Give it another generation, and the show will go the way of Amos 'n' Andy as being racist, 'homophobic', misogynistic, etc. Heaven forbid anyone be offended for anything, the new unalienable P.C. Human Right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Red links[edit]

There are many red links in the article, I've never seen so many on the eve of a GA nomination. Mlpearc (open channel) 15:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll be addressing those before nomination. At least a handful (Don Ingalls, Lincoln Enterprises) among them, I have the sources to create new articles for. The others I'll review and at least see if I can get some stubs out of them, or else I'll remove the links. Miyagawa (talk) 10:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
That's Don Ingalls created. Miyagawa (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Lincoln Enterprises now created as well. Miyagawa (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
All fixed - Steven W. Carabatsos created, and the remainder have been removed. Arne Starr might qualify for an article in the future, but I can only find one proper source to use, so I didn't create that at the moment. Miyagawa (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The Music of Star Trek[edit]

If anyone has access to a copy of The Music of Star Trek by Jeff Bond, please get in touch - it's needed for the music portion of this article. By all accounts, it'll cite the currently uncited information and probably expand on it. Miyagawa (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Someone came through on the resource exchange. Now added to the article. Miyagawa (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


The NFC rationale for the screenshot in the infobox is that it "help[s] identify the episode", "characterize[s] the episode", and "illustrates the nature of the Guardian of Forever". There is marginal critical commentary (WP:NFCI) on the appearance of the GOF in the section "Guardian of Forever", but it's already illustrated by libre-licensed imagery. Furthermore, the image in the infobox doesn't "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic" (WP:NFCC#8); there's nothing in the article that cannot be understood without the inclusion of the screenshot. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I concur - I had hoped something would come related to the construction of the Guardian in the various sources which would warrant it, but it simply doesn't. While the "broken columns" bit describes some scenery work, I don't think an image is required for that purpose, and even so, it wouldn't be this particular image. I'm going to remove the image now. Miyagawa (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Music Section[edit]

@Dickie birdie: Moving the discussion here from my talk page (User talk:Miyagawa#Hey Miyagawa) so that it can be more open and allow other editors to interject if they have thoughts or ideas. I've just made a further edit to the Music section, despite your threat of abitration. I also dislike that you presumed I'd be a complete dick about it and just hit the big shiny revert button.

Instead, I've brought back the cited material you previously removed, as I figured you only meant to remove the final sentence as you discussed in the previous message on my talk page and not the entire paragraph. The sentence in question is on the article, but as hidden text for the moment while I double check the source, and if it comes to it, re-watch the episode to see if the source itself got it correct.

However, some problems remain - two of the points you made are uncited currently, and I've been unable to find reliable citations for them. A third point is cited to a forum, which is an unreliable source - however to be fair, if it wasn't for that forum then I would never have known to look up information on the episode in The Music of Star Trek as they mentioned the book in the discussion.

So, can you identify better sourcing for those statements so that they can be left in (as that'd be the ideal solution)? The only reason why they were previously removed was because they were uncited or unreliably cited material. Miyagawa (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, made some progress. Using's wayback machine, I've tracked down an article on the official Star Trek website which specifically states that the song was by an "unknown studio vocalist". I've removed the cite needed tag for Ray Noble, as it actually was cited elsewhere in the text I added back. Miyagawa (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
@Dickie birdie: I've just reverted your edits today. You removed a fully cited paragraph and replaced with a paragraph which was partly uncited, partly cited to an incorrect source and partly cited to an unreliable source (a forum). Miyagawa (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
You're not an expert, you made bundles of mistakes in your original edits to the music that could only have been made by not watching this episode in the first place. Dickie birdie (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
You've managed to bring in an incorrect statement into the argument. All versions of this song "Goodnight Sweetheart" were composed by Ray Noble, and to lyrics written by Jimmy Campbell and Reg Connelly. If it wasn't composed by Ray Noble and with lyrics by Jimmy Campbell and Reg Connelly then it's simply a different song entitled "Goodnight Sweetheart". The fact that it may have been recorded by several artists, does not change the fact that it was composed by Ray Noble with lyrics by Jimmy Campbell and Reg Connelly. There are no other versions. Because then it would be a different song. I'm not entirely sure how to make this concept easier to understand for you, as it's a very basic concept. Now, according to the official Star Trek website, it was recorded for the episode by a unknown studio singer. This again, does not change the "version" of the song. The song remains composed by Ray Noble with lyrics by Jimmy Campbell and Reg Connelly. If anything, the "version" used is the one recorded by the studio singer, not the "version" composed by Noble etc, etc. Miyagawa (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
You know what. You keep referring to the addition of the edit I made that said that the music appeared in the episode multiple times. Yet you just went and added a citation that agrees with me! Did you even read the page of the Star Trek FAQ? I quote the page "is first heard playing on a radio and later reappears as a love theme during all of Shatner's subsequent scenes with Collins." So will you accept the statement in the source you added, or are we going to have to take this to arbitration as you threatened previously? Miyagawa (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
For anyone else reading this, the page is available to read here. Miyagawa (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
There were different versions of the song "Goodnight Sweetheart" released in 1931 and that can be demonstrated by YouTube. When Miyagawa began editing this page he hadn't even watched the episode in question and based all his edits from what he read in books. Absolutely silly. And this person wants to correct other editors, Dickie birdie (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
There are different recordings of "Goodnight Sweetheart". That is correct, and there can be no argument to that. The original composer or the writers which remain the same in all versions. A recording by a different recording artist simply changes the recording artist. I'm tired of arguing over whether a song appeared in a television episode once, twice, three, twenty or fifty times. It's not worth the argument, would probably just be considered needless trivia anyway. If you know of better sourcing for the Robinson citation, then that'd be great. I have no doubt that it is correct, but a forum is an unreliable source. I've also seen a mention of it at but that would be considered to be an unreliable fan site as well. Plus anything related to the erroneous inclusion of the song in the DVD would be better than the complete lack of source we have at the moment. Miyagawa (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)