Talk:The Man Trap

Sulu's Pet Plant

Watch for Sulu's pet plant -- it's a really bad hand puppet! Like tissue paper on a glove. Laughably bad. Something should be said about this in the article or would that be original research? --Richard 23 06:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Not so much Original Research, but more someone's personal opinion, and POVs aren't permitted. Cyberia23 00:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Request Move

Request Move poll and discussion is located at this talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yaksha (talk • contribs) 10:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

I'll leave it to the nerds to battle out, but.... If she was a shape-shifter then everyone who saw her at a moment in time should have seen the same shape. The fact that she appeared to three characters simultanously as three different women indicates that it was a type of psycological manipulation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.146.35 (talk • contribs)

Yes, it was illusion rather than physical shape-shifting, but I think you mean to call the "nerds" Trekkies. Cyberia23 00:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sleeping Medication

I had changed a part about McCoy needed sleep and wanted to something for it. In the episode. Kirk SUGGESTED to McCoy about pills McCoy had previously given him. The Captain CAN'T PRESCRIBE, but the Doctor can PRESCRIBE FOR HIMSELF. Otherwise it reads like Kirk can himself prescribe medications. Not quite. PFSLAKES1 (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

'Kirk Guns It Down'

Might want to re-think that. I'm pretty sure that in the 23rd century, federation officers don't gun down anything. Kept firing with his phaser ? Yeah. Think about that. PFSLAKES1 (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The creature and the salt

Is there any explanation why initially everyone sees another person whereas later the creature appears and acts as one person at a time? And why didn't anyone notice that there was a monster when it was beamed aboard the Enterprise?

Besides: Why was there no more salt on the planet? Salt is a mineral and doesn't just disappear after it has been eaten.80.141.183.151 (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Telepathic manipulation? Or even better, because the writer wrote the story that way for both the appearance and the consuming salt.Wzrd1 (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

fluke

Didn't any one else notice in this episode Dr.Mccoy's view of his ex changed to that of the view of ct.Kirk when the alien boarded the ship?? she no longer "hasn't aged a day" but he says nothing. --Roy Stanley 06:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royissick (talk • contribs)

Where has the salt of the planet gone?

Is this explained somewhere?80.141.175.115 (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Chemically bound by the physiology of the creature? The planet is poor on chlorine or sodium? The writer wrote the story that way? Take your pick, it's a work of fiction, not reality.Wzrd1 (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Man Trap. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071009235633/http://www.broadcasting-history.ca/networks/networks_Simultaneous_Substitution_on_TV.html to http://www.broadcasting-history.ca/networks/networks_Simultaneous_Substitution_on_TV.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Improved accuracy reverted

I edited part of a sentence that read (referring to The Man Trap): " ... it first aired on September 8, 1966." by adding "in the US" to specify that September 8 was the first US air date, as opposed to its first air date on September 6 on the CTV network in Canada. StarHOG reverted the edit, claiming it was "redundant" because "the prior sentence lists it as an American TV show" and that "the assumption is that it aired in the US". The problem is that the wording causes an assumption that the US airing on September 8 was the very first airing in the world, because it is literally worded "it first aired on September 8, 1966" which, as worded, is incorrect. It does not mention the September 6, 1966 airing in Canada until two paragraphs later. The sentence - if it is to be written accurately - should read: " ... it first aired in the US on September 8, 1966." I wish my edit to remain. Kubrickrules (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I think because this episode has special status as "the first" star trek episode to ever air, I will agree with you in placing the US before the airdate. My original concern was that you felt all the episiodes needed a disclaimer, but I was mistaken in that assumption. I support your edit. StarHOG (Talk) 14:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Marc Cushman

I had initially started removing all mention of Cushman's book (and begun replacing it, where appropriate, with "citation needed" markers), but stopped when I realized this article was at FA status and instead headed to the talkpage. I've reverted my own edits for now.

Cushman's book is self-published, so it immediately is not a RS. I know Cushman is a self-proclaimed Star Trek expert, but I don't know the degree to which he has been published within other RS, which is necessary for him to pass the requirement at WP:SPS. I do know that since his book is self-published, it hasn't really been reviewed by other RS. As a fan-published work, it has been reviewed at fan sites. That said, there have been real issues raised regarding Cushman's understanding of how Nielsen ratings work (and the conclusions he's drawn from them), his misuse of images (including having taken fan-created images and published them without permission or attribution), and overall sloppiness in terms of basic copyediting within the book itself.

I don't want to derail this article's status, but Cushman's work (and material that is entirely dependent upon it for sourcing) needs to be extracted from the article. Grandpallama (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)