Talk:Jefferies tube

Appostrophe?
Shouldn't there be an Apostrophe? i.e. "Jeffries' Tube". That's quite aside from the common internet spelling "Jeffrey's Tube" - which clearly is wrong if it derives from a person's name with the "ies" spelling. Graldensblud 16:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just pulled out Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise and the Star Trek The Next Generation Technical Manual (p. 83 has a paragraph about them) and neither of them used an apostrophe. I think the intention is not to say that these tubes belong to Matt Jeffiries, just that they're named after him. Like how the John F. Kennedy Airport doesn't have an apostrophe-s after the name. Bryan Derksen 23:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirect
Any objection -- justified by, say, an assertion of this topic's notability and evidence it has been subject to significant coverage by third-party sources -- to Matt Jeffries? The (cited) bits of "other media" stuff can be combined into a sentence dropped into that article. --EEMIV (talk) 13:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I support that idea. It would result in one article, more interesting than each on its own. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Object This article has better citations than the article Matt Jeffries and a survey of sources above indicates that more can easily be added. More importantly the topics do not have much in common - just the name - and so would not sit well together.  Colonel Warden (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please add/integrate those, or at least post a link here to specific, sources, then -- I clicked around a few of those links and saw nothing more than trivia and passing references, even for the in-universe items. Lacking those, I plan to redirect this article in a week or so (via AfD if necessary). --EEMIV (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems to me the only objection to a merge that's really needed to argue against it is "they don't belong in the same article together." Which I agree with. Why sew two relatively unrelated concepts together into one article when they're each doing fine on their own? It wouldn't improve our coverage of either topic, it'd just muddle up the linking. Bryan Derksen (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Revisiting this: this article pinged on my watchlist the other day. I've taken a description of this topic to the Enterprise article and made the redirect a target to that section. Twelve (yikes) after first suggesting a redirect because this topic isn't especially notable, I don't see a lot of improvement to this article or any new evidence of notability does the explosion of Star Trek content. --EEMIV (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Diagonal orientation
"They can be vertically or horizontally oriented [..]" It's funny that the diagonal or slanted orientation used in the original series isn't mentioned when it was the orientation most seen in that series, if I remember correctly. 75.15.176.91 (talk) 11:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Wrong date/episode for first establishment of the term
I looked up this article while seeking the origin. I noticed the term used in episode 11 (The Hunted) of season 3, which is two seasons before the episode cited in this article , Disaster (episode 5, season 5).

I don't know if this is the first usage of the term, but hopefully this knowledge is helpful. – 31.185.24.29 (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)