Talk:Beam me up, Scotty

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hhull45.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
Hello! Would it be relevant to include that the phrase "Beam Me Up, Scotty" has also been used as slang for certain drugs?

An Oxford Reference page, using "Green's Dictionary of Slang", defined "Beam me up, Scotty" as "a mixture of phencyclidine and cocaine, thus phrs. talk to Scotty, high off Scotty, see Scotty... etc.", aka Drugs. Also from Green's Dictionary of Slang, also talking about how the phrase expressed the desire to be somewhere else: "...an expression of the desire to be elsewhere. 2.) to smoke crack cocaine. 3. as exhortation, give me some drugs! usu. crack cocaine." Others, such as the Baxter County Sheriff- and "Vice Slang" by Tom Dalzell and Terry Victor, define this phrase as one used for crack cocaine.

I also found an obituary for James Doohan, the actor who played Scotty, claiming he responded to the command "Beam me up, Scotty".

I also discovered that the phrase has been extended to "Beam me up, Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here!" Does anyone know of any evidence or reason why this has been extended, or where the other half of this quote came from? Would it be relevant to this article to include? Thank you all!

Hhull45 (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Untitled
(removed the unnecessary talk page redirect--Tim Thomason 02:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC))

Untitled

 * The CNN obituary link is invalid,   (02.april 2007)

I found this most peculiar sound file on my hard drive: Beam me up, Scotty! - yes it says the very sentence! AFAICT it doesn't sound like William Shattner at all. (But the music in the background sounds very much like ST:TOS). My file's timestamp says 1997 and I suppose I may have the file even since 1993 or so. I must have found this on a BBS back then. Any idea what it is? Jiri Svoboda 12:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right in that it's not Shatner. It almost sounds like Patrick Stewart but the clip is so quick that I can't tell.  Dismas |(talk) 12:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Films
Ace Ventura Pet Detective. Jim Carrey uses it in that 86.45.53.30 (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"First used in"
Is it really appropriate to list it as "First used in: Star Trek" if the exact phrase was never used in Star Trek? --Khajidha (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the phrase: "Beam me up Scotty" actually originated in a "Cliffhanger" episode of the sitcom satire "Soap" involving Eunice and the South American revolutionary "El Puerco". When everything seemed hopeless, all one of the male characters could come up with is: "Beam me up Scotty...." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultramince (talk • contribs) 01:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

in popular culture section

 * This article is about a catchphrase. Showing notable examples of it being used outside its main series, I believe is important.  Opinions please.   D r e a m Focus  02:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * References It's fine to mention a couple of times when this has been used subsequent to Star Trek (e.g. Jim Traficant used it constantly) but lists like these are trivial and indiscriminate. In addition, cruft attracts unsourced original research. It's better to mention this in text rather than a list as that at least makes it less likely to attract drive-by mentions. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It isn't indiscriminate. Anything or anyone notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, that references it in a song, television episode, or whatnot, is listed.  You shouldn't delete something because you don't like how it was written, a list instead of in a paragraph form.  This article has been around for over 10 years.  I see the Popular Culture section was added 8 years ago, and before that had information in the main body of the article instead.  You should never delete something because you believe it will somehow attract editors who will add in inappropriate content.   D r e a m Focus  01:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Well first of all if an article contains some trivia it is not always a catastrophe as some like to paint it as long as it is within reason but more importantly sourced and correct. In fact "trivia" in form of well known anecdotes or tidbits oftenbelongs into a comprehensive treatment of subject.

It is true however that a lists to a degree tend to invite the adding of random and mostly undesireable trivia, but that doesn't mean a list as such is wrong just that its format is more prone to abuse than a normal text. Now the list at hand only had 5 entries so for now you can hardly argue that it has collected masses of clearly unwanted trivia, though only one entry was sourced. Hence I dislike the wholesale indiscriminate removal as well and though not optimal I don't mind a properly sourced list the length of which stays within reason.

Nevertheless the obvious compromise here might be to rewrite the sourced parts of the list as a normal text or at the very least reduce any list to sourced entries only.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S.: For comparison the German entry mentions as "trivia" (in text rather than list format): the "Beam me up, Scotty! There is no intelligent life on this planet"-bumper sticker/popular phrase from the 70s, the latin version in Southpark and the parody scene in spaceballs as well James Doohan's autobiography and the use in drug related contexts (all referenced with (secondary) sources of course).--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Your "compromise" is ridiculous. If the content was valid, then you do not have the right to delete it simply because you personally prefer "prose" to "list".  Erasing things without a reference makes sense though, and since I don't feel like finding references for everything, I'll let the matter drop now.   D r e a m Focus  19:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I neither deleted anything nor are the current WP guidlines/recommendation my idea, I merely commented on the dispute here and how best to resolve it.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

potential sources/references for extension

 * https://books.google.de/books?id=ACB81ZeNN5sC&pg=PA47
 * https://books.google.de/books?id=DKi_1yIde6EC&pg=PA21
 * https://books.google.de/books?id=8ShYbxy6O4QC&pg=PT117
 * https://books.google.de/books?id=glIg1iG91XcC&pg=PA6

Another Star Trek IV Quote
There seems to be a number of sites e.g. this that claim "Beam me up, Mr. Scott" is also from Star Trek IV. If so, worth inclusion in the article?Lmstearn (talk) 06:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

"Energize!"
The fact that "energize!" is the more common way for Kirk to express his order that the transporter be engaged may go some way in explaining why there are relatively few "near misses" to find.137.205.183.31 (talk) 10:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beam me up, Scotty. 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/20140610193348/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-111242161.html to http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-111242161.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

German dub section
I removed that section because its content was partially not confirmed by the given sources, not to mention that half of the sources were not vaild sources for WP to begin with.

In addition the purpose of that section seems questionable, the two interesting or worthwhile information bits were:
 * a) being famous in German first
 * b) in German the quote is quote is actually said exactly as in the series.

However to my knowledge a) is false and wasn't sourced either as far as I could see. As far as b) goes that seems a bit questionable as well, as in primarily German usually the original English is used as described in the Duden source, which however doesn't mention anything about the translated German version being an exact quote from the series.

Overall the whole section (see als the changes/removal due WP:NPOV before) seem to have been editorialising and WP:OR, hence I thought it best to remove the whole thing.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)