Talk:Star Trek: The Next Generation/Archive 1

Number of episodes!!
Could someone knowledgable, please add this info to the article. It would be sensible to state the overall number of existing episodes of TNG, and also perhaps the number of expisodes in each "year". Engage! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.36.207 (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

- there are 176 episodes, 26 in each of 7 seasons except season 2, which had 22.

Bathrooms
I think this point needs to be cleared up a bit. The article says both that "a single toilet was marked in the center of the saucer section" and "bathrooms are never shown on Enterprise schematics". Both obviously cannot be correct, and I'm not sure the best way to reconcile this.


 * I haven't noticed the toilet on any of the schematics I've seen, but I wouldn't doubt its existence. It's probably related to the ship's giant duck and so on. (See The Art of Star Trek and the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual for more on that.) If we want to be nitpicky, a lone toilet isn't a bathroom... But I think the toilet doesn't count because it doesn't represent a real toilet on the ship, and the intent of the passage on bathrooms in diagrams refers to real bathrooms. --WarpFlyght 09:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the intent of this statement should be that washrooms – actually, toilets – were never depicted on-screen. On the Enterprise-D bridge, there was a "head" on the starboard side of the bridge, and you can ocassionally see extras walking through its doors.  As well, the in-joke was strengthened by the inclusion of numerous details on the engineering Master Situation Display (MSD), one of which I believe were one or more toilets (also included are a mouse, duck, and the Nomad probe).  This notion was also reinforced when Zefram Cochrane commented to Geordi on the apparent lack of our favourite 'astronauts' in ever "peeing" in Star Trek: First Contact.  Moreover, take a glance at the Enterprise-D blueprints and you'll see a plethora of lavatories.  Besides: where could all that pee go? :)  I hope this helps. E Pluribus Anthony 10:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the blueprints do include heads, but I don't think there were any actually shown on the screen. Anyway, I think the passages as they are written on the page are fine and not contradictory. --WarpFlyght 15:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Didn't I say that? Great!  :)  I was just trying to summarise relevant information about giving "head", while only passing judgements where needed.  There you go!  :) E Pluribus Anthony 21:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I would assume that individual quarters would have their own bathrooms, and I am sure Ten Forward and other facilities would have them. If they're really deperate, maybe they could just use the transporter? ;-) Marky1981 21:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

A picture of the scematics would help to clarify the section Symmetric Chaos 21:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

While the need to handle human waste is a basic -- as a story plot, the idea is rather moot -- and un-interesting. KyuuA4 09:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

In the episode where there are two races of colonists, one of them transcendentalists and the other clones, a woman goes with Riker to his quarters to "wash her feet" (use the bathroom). If the implication is to be believed, Riker has a toilet facility in his quarters. 141.153.56.179 (talk) 05:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC) bez


 * So she washed her feet in his toilet? MattyC3350 (talk) 05:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Mot the Barber
I'm wondering whether or not Mr. Mot, the ship's barber, was seen enough to qualify as a recurring character? AdmN 04:16, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I, for one, have no recollection of such a person.--[[User:Nricardo|Nelson Ricardo >>Talk<<]] 00:10, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * Blue fellow, right? I remember him from only one episode.


 * Acegikmo1 00:47, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * [sigh...] I wish I had cable tv so that I could watch the episodes again.... The Star Trek Encyclopedia sites 3 episodes under Mr. Mot's entry: Data's Day, Ensign Ro, and Unification, Part 1; however, it doesn't make it clear if he appeared in all three, or if was only mentioned in one or two of them. I happen to remember an episode where he was only mentioned, Starship Mine. Captain Picard pretended to be Mr. Mot, (his lack of resemblence notwithstanding). :) func(talk) 01:13, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The Global Episode Opinion Survey lists him as appearing in two episodes, "Ensign Ro" and "Schisms"  See also A Google search of STARTREK.COM.


 * Acegikmo1 03:18, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The first appearance of a Bolian barber was in Data's Day. He didn't get a name in that episode, however. He was also played by a different actor than the later named Mr. Mot. func(talk) 03:30, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Another reacuring character is Nurse Alyssa Ogawa, played by Patti Yasutake. She was on Clues, Identity Crisis, The Host, Ethics, Cause and Effect, Imaginary Friend, The Inner Light, Realm of Fear, Suspicions, Parallels, Lower Decks, Genesis, and All Good Things... She also made appearances in Generations and First Contact. I think that Nurse Ogawa should be on this list.


 * Um... she is. Her link is red, unfortunately. func(talk) 22:46, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Another recurring character is Boothby, played by Ray Walston. Should this character be added? --abl 13:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Mot appears on at least two episodes. His customers always seem to be complaining that he messes up their haircuts. --User:oldneuro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.200.95 (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

List of Races
The list of races should probably be replaced with a link to List of Star Trek races. Also, some of the races currently listed on the TNG page are from other series (e.g. the Krenim).


 * Ahaha, yeah. The Krenim is my fault.  Wrong page. :)  Meant Voyager.


 * As for moving them, perhaps a table on list of Star Trek races marking them? Cburnett 23:29, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, I started it in the place of the TOC. Please help change all the ? marks to Y or N. Cburnett 23:56, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there is no mention of Chief O'Brien (played by Irish actor, Colm Meaney)on these pages. Why is that? 21:01, August 19, 2006

Contiguous
The episodes Encounter at Farpoint and All Good Things... are so neatly bookends because, from Q's point of view, they were contiguous. Here are the relevant lines from the script of the later episode:


 * Picard: The last time I stood in this courtroom was seven years ago...


 * Q: "Seven years ago... " How little you mortals understand time. Must you be so linear, Jean-Luc?


 * Picard: You accused me of being the representative of a barbarous species...


 * Q: I believe my exact words were "a dangerous, savage, child-race."


 * Picard: But we demonstrated that mankind has become peaceful and benevolent. You agreed, and let us go on our way. (looking around)  Why do I find myself back in this courtroom?




 * Q: The trial never ended, Captain. We never reached a verdict. But, now we have: you're guilty.

And from the second Q episode (by the reckoning of the Enterprise crew), Hide and Q:


 * Picard: So, you're taking on Riker this time. (smiles) Excellent! He'll defeat you just as I did!


 * Q: A wager on that, Captain? Your command of this starship against... ?


 * Picard: Against your staying out of humanity's path... forever! Done?

In the next Q episode, Q Who?, we find out that Q is willing to keep his word; that is why he brings Picard to a shuttle craft to talk to him. But if he did so, then how could the trial have been both the first and last episodes. It has to do with Q's statement about Picard understanding time too linearly. From Q's point of view, the first and last episodes were contiguous, or at least not having the other Q episodes between. Val42 03:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll reword what I wrote in Talk:Replicator (Star Trek) just today. If it isn't explained sufficiently to *know* that they were contiguous, then it's an assumption to say they are contiguous.  Q never says that they are contiguous, so you're inferring/assuming that from what he's said.


 * Having said that: aren't you also being a victim of thinking time as linear? That "Encounter at Farpoint" preceeded "All Good Things..." contiguously?  That sounds extremely linear thinking to me. Cburnett 05:28, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I agree to your terms on the burden of proof for inclusion in Wikipedia. But I think that it was established in the Star Trek: Voyager episode Death Wish that the Q do experience duration linearly in some dimension of time (that isn't our dimension of time). They can also come and experience duration linearly in our dimension of time, as in Encounter at Farpoint when it hadn't occurred to Q to hold a trial until Picard mentioned it. The Q can come and go at any point in our time, as they wish, just like another spacial dimension to us. But the Q experience duration in some time differently than the Deep Space Nine wormhole aliens. I could make a compelling case for these summaries, but again, this wouldn't rise to the level of proof needed to put it in to a Wikipedia article.

I've well considered the linearity of Q's appearances. Time-travel stories are my favorites, so I like thinking non-linearly. (The most convoluted time-travel story that I've ever read is All You Zombies—. Yes, the title does include all of that punctuation.)  We could arrange the Q appearances in order from his point of view, but there wouldn't be enough evidence to put it in a Wikipedia article. There are other web sites that we could link to for that. Val42 01:13, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * Either you didn't understand me or I didn't explain it well enough (whatever it is is irrelevant). :) I don't see a problem stating your position as long as you don't write it as fact.


 * For example, we can state that one could infer that "Encounter at Farpoint" and "All Good Things..." happened contiguously because of the point you raise. That I don't have much problem with (it only becomes POV if we discount other explanations).  But what we can't say is that it the two are contiguous from Q's point of view.


 * I'd have to think about it more, but I think WP:AWT is a good parallel: generally you avoid saying "some people think that Joe is the coolest" but "some people prefer dogs; others prefer cats" is ok. If it's abundantly clear that the two episodes are contiguous then rock on.


 * As an example of this last point: consider the ending of Nemesis. We see the ship Data is on explodes but I don't think we saw Data actually being destroyed (if so, them assume not for this point).  After he fires he could have been transported out by a cloaked Romulan ship before the ship explodes (how many times have we seen the transporter pull someone out just as the ship blows up?).  But it's overwhelming convincing that Data did indeed die: so we can write that Data is dead.


 * I don't want to sound like I'm the judge and jury on this. Anyone else have some to share? Cburnett 01:48, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I went back and read your edits from the 21st. I understand what you mean now. Val42 03:26, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Most Frequent Antagonist
" He appears the most frequently of any antagonist, appearing in ten episodes, compared with six episodes for the second-most frequently appearing antagonists, the Borg." This just doesn't seem right, what about the Romulans? While I don't know the numbers off hand, but I'm pretty sure that they were in more episodes then Q and the Borg (and do those six episodes count The Neutral Zone as a Borg episode?).--Jsonitsac 05:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Six Borg Episodes: Q Who, Best of Both Worlds I and II, I Borg, and Descent I and II.
 * Romulans: The Neutral Zone, Unification I and II, Redemption I and II, Data's Day (though barely), The Enemy, and The Mind's Eye. I might be missing some, but that gets the total over the Borg.  The Ferengi also probably come pretty close: Menage a Troi, The Battle, The Price, The Last Outpost, Bloodlines, and Rascals.


 * So the statement as a whole should probably be fixed. -Thebdj 20:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being a nerd but I'm not really a fan of this sentence: "Three new recurring enemy races are introduced: the Ferengi, the Borg, and the Cardassians." But the Federation is at peace with the Cardassians in TNG (when we see them, they would've been at war during the first season strange the flagship doesn't participate in that). I think "antagonistic" would work better. Makgraf 07:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've always wondered about that Cardassian War. It seems to me that it wasn't a big drawn-out conflict like the Dominion War.  I base this on the fact that Picard made some comments about how a Galor class ship was significantly inferior to the Enterprise.  I think this war was more of a border conflict than a total war.  Here are the reasons why: First,  we've never heard anything about Starfleet marching on Cardassia Prime, or taking Cardassian systems. Second, we've seen that the Maquis rebellion was about the Federation-Cardassian border.  It still seems that the Cardassians did some pretty brutal stuff during the war, since we have heard about massacres perpetrated by the Cardassians (Stelik III).  As for the Enterprise not participating in the war, well, maybe that's because the war was winding down, and Starfleet realized the Romulans and Borg were a bigger and more immediate threat.--[[Image:jsonitsacsig.gif]]  talk to me    crimes against humanity  00:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI for Sarek
There's not a page up for the episode "Sarek" ...yet, so I wasn't sure where to bring this to anyone's attention...BUT early next year Conlon Press is printing a book by Peter S. Beagle about the creation of this episode.... --JohnDBuell 21:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Guest Stars
I just tweaked the Guest Stars/Hawking reference. It said that he played himself; he did not, he played a holodeck simulation of himself in the 24th Century. He couldn't play himself unless we stipulate now that he exists as himself in three hundred odd years. samwaltz 23:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Now that is an impressively geeky distinction. I have to respect that. :)  -BarkingDoc 01:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Strange reflections on LaForge's visor
If you look at the picture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TNG_crew.jpg) in the "Main characters" section, then you may get the impression that LaForge is staring at you with sharp white and angular eyes. He is wearing his visor, but his eyes seem to shine through it in a somewhat deformed way. This is a strange reflection of light from his visor. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (01042006)


 * He looks sorta like Cyclops of the X-Men with a silver visor. Dreadlocke 07:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Trivia
This is, well, trivial, and it certainly marks me as a trekker, but the expanded acronym of "VISOR" actually did appear in the novelization of "Encounter At Farpoint," which was released close to the series premiere. So the acronym did exist even if it wasn't expanded on the show.

My actual question is: what did the author mean when they said this was the only syndicated series to receive the Emmy nomination for Best Drama? Dozens of syndicated series have recieved that nomination, most easily remembered being Law And Order in several different years. Was it possibly the first? I don't think this is possible. Hill Street Blues? L.A. Law? Miami Vice? BarkingDoc 00:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstood "syndication." L&O, Miami Vice, etc are all in syndication as reruns. TNG is the only show to have been nominated which was strictly run through syndication. ie: NBC shows L&O's new episodes, and then syndicates them to other networks (sometimes sister networks, or networks that will pay good money for them). TNG was sold to networks as it was being produced. It had no network backing it. Lordwow 02:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Pulowski
Why isn't Dr. Kate Pulowski(sp.?) in the list with the regualr cast members? She was in more episodes than Tasha Yar. 71.193.71.9 18:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Diana Muldaur chose not to be listed as a member of the regular cast, so didn't appear in the opening sequence, for instance. She was listed as a guest star for the whole year she appeared in the series.  It wouldn't be accurate to describe her as a member of the regular cast.  However, I see the sidebar does list her as a star; is this a matter of controversy, or shall I remove her?  (There are any number of recurring guest stars who would also merit being put there - John de Lancie springs to mind). Vashti 03:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Apperances of Riker
Riker is written to have appeared in all of the episodes, but to my knowledge he does not appear in Birthright, part II. Am I wrong? I tried to modify the trivia enter but my change has been reverted. Gbnogkfs 27 August 2006, 23:23 (UT)
 * Appears about 14 minutes into the episode. Verified by my full set of DVDs. Thebdj 01:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * right. Gbnogkfs 28 August 2006, 02:10 (UT)

Michelle Forbes as Dara
Just noticed the add of the "Dara" character Michelle Forbes (Ensign Ro) played in a single season 4 episode. I have a suspicion this doesn't belong, because the list is a list of recurring characters, not recurring actors. Still, this seems like a relevant tidbit. Should it be removed? Should the list be renamed to recurring actors? Should it be added as some kind of footnote? —Trevyn 06:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I made something up that made sense to me. Feel free to alter/remove it if you all prefer. —Trevyn 18:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Dwight Schultz not in Season 5
I made the change that Dwight Schultz as Lieutenant Reginald Barclay, engineer, is not in TNG: Season 5. I think I am right. (Simonapro 08:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC))


 * You are not right, at least according to Dwight Schultz's IMDB profile, which says he appeared as Barclay in one episode each in the years 1990-1994, which would be Seasons 3-7 inclusive. MSJapan 03:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, he did, but TNG seasons spanned from the fall of one year to the spring of the next, i.e. Season 3 was from 1989-1990. His 1992 and 1993 appearances were both in Season 6:   -- SmokeDetector47( TALK ) 04:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems a little unnecessary to me to specify exactly which seasons he appeared in regardless. To me "Seasons 3-7" just means that he recurred between 3 and 7. It doesn't specify how many times, or exactly when. Maybe it's just the way they're listed (I'd prefer "3, 4, 6, 7" or something). In fact, the whole section is a bit messy right now. For instance, Michelle Forbes' other character shouldn't even be in the table. It's recurring characters, not actors... I'll leave the Barclay entry alone, but I'm doing a little re-working of the table. Majel Barrett's work as the computer voice is detailed below, and doesn't need to be in the table (I don't consider the computer a "recurring character"). Furthermore, the table should probably be consistent with the main character one above it, i.e. character name first. The biographical snippets were pretty arbitrary, too, and since each character has their own page, I removed them for now. If they're added back, let's at least make them a little more readable and consistent, maybe in a separate table column, or a little shorter or something. -- Fru1tbat 12:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well if Barclay is not in Season 5, and he does not appear to be in Season 5 from what I can tell, then Season 5 should not be included in the list, as other characters have excluded Seasons in their profile, why should Barclay be any different? Until someone can say which episode Barclay is in in Season 5, my position remains the same. So what episode is he in in Season 5?(Simonapro 05:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC))
 * He wasn't in any episode in season 5. My point was just that "3-7" can mean "between 3 and 7" as well. Since the convention seems to be to list the seasons the character appeared in explicitly, though, I don't really have a problem leaving the Barclay entry the way it is. -- Fru1tbat 11:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Good. That is all that matters. Obviously "3-7" would include "5" which was wrong. Barclay wasn't in Season 5 and that is all that matters here. (Simonapro 18:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC))

One note
There was a bathroom shown on TOS, according to a few sources. I just thought I should put that detail in, so you could all marvel at my great knowledge of such profundities. :-) See you.

--Sm8900 19:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a toilet seat that slides out in a shuttle craft in the move Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country. BTW, this is TNG not TOS. (Simonapro 06:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC))

Star Trek/Robotech trivia citation needed
I added a request for a citation to this trivia. A search at the United States Patent and Trademark Office reveals that Harmony Gold (Robotech's producer) never filed for a trademark for Robotech: The New Generation, past or present. If no citation is found, this entry will be removed.1-54-24 17:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The Remark About The Sexist Introduction
I am suggesting we change this to read "-- for political correctness --", remove the inline comment entirely, or cite the previous opening narrator's quotation contrasted with the new one; allowing the reader to make the judgment as to why or what the comments changes are. In good faith, we should not impute our interpretations less this not be an unbiased source. When the show was created I am quite sure the intention wasn't to be derogatory to anyone; the now obsolete use of the term "man" to describe human beings is a clear sign of the original series age and creation in time. There are many great shows, like "Cosmos", whom are not trying to insult women but have the same obsolete usage. I hope we can all see eye to eye on this. BlackWolf 09:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is best to remove the interpretation entirely; unless someone has a cite, commenting on their reasoning is speculation. IMO, "political correctness" is a pretty loaded term, at least as POV "remove sexist language" was.  I will remove the remark, which it sounds like you're OK with.  -- Coneslayer 15:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You both have a point - I should have said "gender-specific" rather than sexist. I'm going to do a little research on this - I am reasonably sure I've seen refs for this point as discussed by the creators of TNG (I know I have talked about it with some TNG writers and creative team, but that's not quotable stuff).  I'll see what I can find and if it is quotable and appropriate, I'll make a suitable edit.  Sorry  -I actually was neither trying to denigrate TOS and its creators nor post POV text - I guess I've seen this so many times that it seemed apparent and obvious.  Tvoz 22:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The gender neutral w/ citation is excellent. BlackWolf 17:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think it is much better than what I had posted originally. Tvoz 07:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Trekkie v. Trekker
Is this section appropriate within the discussion of TNG? This seems more like an issue for the main Star Trek page rather than this specific series. I would suggest a move immediately. Pseudolus42 05:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

homosexuality section changes
There has been text added that has been reverted several times - I did so just now, for these reasons: I don't know if this edit is meant to be serious, or if it's vandalism, but it has been reverted a few times and I posted a note on the talk page of the IP address that posted it, asking that the editor stop reverting it, and instead come here to discuss if there is something to say. Tvoz | talk 03:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * camp does not equal gay - this is POV
 * the sexual orientation of any cast member has absolutely nothing to do with what this section is addressing, which is whether a vision of the future should include homosexual characters - this is ridiculous
 * including the uniforms in this section? - this is absurd.

Not sure why my additions regarding useof camp in ST:TNG have been removed. the first editor claimed to have removed them thinking I was just testing, the second claimed to be reinstating something else- only the third says that he thinks they're unhelpful. Couldn't the first two editors have been honest about their reasons for removal in the first place? As for the edits in question - is there any doubt that Geordi's performance and other elements of ST:TNG are camp? And I do say this as someone who enjoys TNG and Le Var Burton's performance in it.
 * OK - Just seen Tvoz's reasoning above. First, camp does not equal gay - hence it was referred to as camp as opposed to gay or homosexual. Second, cast members' orientation was not mentioned,nor is it relevant, third; William Theiss's costumes are very colourful, surely an element of camp in both the original series as well as TNG.


 * First - actually I was the 2nd and 3rd comment on your page, posted at the same time - the 2nd was the required vandalism warning, but I recognized that you might not have been deliberately vandalizing, so I invited you to come here to talk about it.  I understand that camp is not gay - that is what I said - so why include that in the section about complaints by homosexual viewers? Seems to me you were the one making that link and it seems inappropriate to me.   As for Levar Burton - I couldn't tell what you were saying and thought you were implying that the actor is gay which would be irrelevant. If you were not, then what are you talking about when you mention his performance as Geordi? That it was a "gay" performance?  If camp, then again, camp is not gay. The uniforms are the uniforms, and I don't see then as being particularly camp,  but again - what does this have to do with the question raised in the supposed controversy (which frankly I'd like to see some citation for, as I don't think it is common knowledge that the gay community  had this objection)?  The section is suggesting that gay fans were upset that the vision of the future did not include gay people - I don't see how your edit has any relevance.  Maybe others see it differently, but I am only one of the people who reverted it, so I'd like to hear.   Thanks for coming by and discussing it, though.  Tvoz | talk 04:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't say I've ever considered Burton's performance to be remotely camp, or Geordi to be a camp character. Regardless, however, this appears to be one editor's opinion and should not be included in the article without a citation. Vashti 11:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As one of the editors mentioned above, I didn't just claim to be reinstating content. I in fact did (when you reverted the previous deletion, you also deleted several intermediate edits, which I fixed), and at the same time deleted the line in question (see diff here). My full edit summary was: "(rv: restored accidentally deleted legitimate content (stardates), remove original commentary)", and the latter explains the deletion. I not only never saw Burton's performance or the uniforms as camp elements, but I've never even heard anyone else make the same claims. Since they were unsourced, they appeared to me to be original commentary. --Fru1tbat 04:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Reminder and refresher
As this subject is still obviously in dispute as it has been reverted and re-reverted several times...please discuss any further opinions and thoughts on the topic before making any further modifications...we do not want any edit wars, and please remember the Three-revert rule.Blipadouzi 15:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have removed the "original research" from the in question text; the rest is factual and aids in giving a more complete encyclopedic article. Nicht Nein! 16:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

G4 section
Wikipedia content decisions don't really run on the principle of stare decesis, so yes, let's get rid of it. And the one at Star Trek: The Original Series as well. Morwen - Talk 15:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If it were just about the series being shown as-is on a network, that might not warrant any more than a single sentence, but in this case, it relates to the episodes being shown with additional, auxiliary content added on-screen, and there should certainly be some mention of that in the article. So I would say that the G4 section should be kept.  For that matter, I think there should be some mention of the extra interviews and such that were shown in the first run of TOS on the Sci-Fi Channel in its article, at least a paragraph or two.  --ΨΦorg 17:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it better to contribute here or at Memory Alpha?
I'm sure the answers will be biased, but is it better to try and improve the wiki which seems to have most Star Trek resources (Memory Alpha) or the old favourite (here)? I don't like putting work into an episode summary only to find there's already a better one on one wiki or the other. Would it be better to pool resources or be spread thinner but (eventually) offer differing perspectives? - Diceman 11:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The purposes of the two sites are different. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, and discusses topics from the real-world perspective. Memory Alpha, however, discusses topics from an in-universe perspective. They generally get into a much deeper level of detail than we do here. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 14:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for addressing this question EVula, I've been puzzling over it. (And thank you Diceman, for asking it.) This particular article seems to be a good example of the distinction. However, the link to an article I picked at random from this page is less so. The Best of Both Worlds (Star Trek: The Next Generation). Reading the plot summaries, they are both quite detailed, but in different styles, elaborating on different aspects. (In fact, I had to double-check they were discussing the same episode.)


 * Perhaps one answer to Diceman's question is: contribute to whichever appeals to you more. Or both, taking in account the difference in site guidelines.


 * There are two Wiki communities addressing largely overlapping material. A reader may find they prefer the presentation of quite the same information in one Wiki or the other. Longtime browsing readers have seen articles that were translated into English from another language. Often, though, the versions in other languages don't present the same information. E.g., the French version has a section for the Emmy awards won by TNG, while the English article has a different section: "Best Episodes". The Spanish version has a nice little picture of a smiling Patrick Stewart.


 * Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 06:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ultimate Trek: Star Trek's Greatest moments
It seems all to trivial to me included and not really notable, secondly "is regarded as the best episode of the series" - who regards it as the best? This should not be re-added without a consensus. Two editors (inc. my self) have reverted it. Matthew 15:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it's your problem if you consider this trivial and unnotable. Shall I take it the Entertainment Weekly is a better source regarding which is to be considered the best episode rather than this special produced by Paramount Pictures about Star Trek greatest moments? Why should the Paramount view of the best episode be discounted?--Kamikaze 16:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually think the section should be excised, I have not removed it though as it has been in the article for multiple revisions from multiple editors without being contested. If you wish I would endorse the removal of the section (as it is just as nn imo). Matthew 16:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would hardly wish such a thing. As to this point, you seem to be the only one to contest it.--Kamikaze 16:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Only one? Ok, so this guy didn't "really" revert you? Sure... I'll await further comments from more logical editors. Matthew 16:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? From what I see, he didn't excised the section you think should be removed. As for the reasons of his revert, he offered no valid explication.--Kamikaze 16:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah. I misunderstood you. Never mind :-). Matthew 16:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should get rid of the "best episodes" list. There are probably many such lists out there and it's hard to establish criteria for including one but not others. Perhaps instead we should incorporate mention of what episodes are critically acclaimed in the Plots section (similar to what's done in the History section of The X-Files). Acegikmo1 17:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

We could get rid of the list but we should keep the information about the best episode retrieved from "The Ultimate Trek" since it represents Paramount's official position.--Kamikaze 17:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's an opinion, these have NO place on wikipedia Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 20:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * So, too, is Entertainment Weekly's list. And it seems like fluff, anyway. Anyone object to ditching the EW list? --EEMeltonIV 20:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No objections from me :P Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 20:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The EW list is not the issue. Do whatever you want with it. The inclusion of the best episode note according to Paramount is. It's true that not everyone agrees on the best tng episode, but the official position of the production company should have its place on an encyclopedia.--Kamikaze 21:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You do not get my point-no matter WHO said it, it is STILL an opinion. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 21:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur with the removal, either way both are non-npov. Matthew 23:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You fail to understand my point. An official opinion is an encyclopedic fact.--Kamikaze 06:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is you who fails to understand my point. No matter IF it is an official opinion or not, it STILL IS AN OPINION NO MATTER WHAT. Wikipedia's guidelines state this in Matthew's link above.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 16:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You failed again to understand my point. It is your problem if you choose to narrow your view point only to the notion itself. The Paramount's view on this matter has an encylopedic value. If we were to apply ad litteram the WP:NPOV, absolutely every opinion, including critics, official views, everything, should be removed from wikipedia which is hardly the case. Not even the caps you seem so fond of can alter this.--Kamikaze 17:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's you failing to see the point, Kamikaze, your edit does not meet guidelines/policy. The value of Paramount's opinion is little, if any.. it's not notable, there's no context to make it useful. Critic reviews establish notability, etc, they are secondary.. Paramount is primary. Matthew 17:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hardly. Just like your caps fond supporter, you are failing to realize that the official position of the production company regarding the best episode is notable in the context of an article about the series it produced. You would be right if the case were, let's say, to decide what is the best sci-fi series or something like that. The distinction between secondary and primary sources is not meant to exclude every kind of primary source. You could as well argue about removing statements such as "Bush said the law, estimated to cost $400 billion over the first 10 years, would give the elderly "better choices and more control over their health care", because this is too an opinion.--Kamikaze 17:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, this is similar to the canon status of the Animated Series. You must understand that it's extremly damaging to an encyclopedia to seek and rely on absolute laws, which Wikipedia guideline and policy are not.--Kamikaze 17:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And one more thing for the caps-enjoying editor: you may shocked to find out that Paramount OPINIONS form the basis of Star Trek canon. By your faulty judgement, we should thus excise every reference to canon.--Kamikaze 18:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was just about to form a kind of compromise with you, but reading your replies, I've changed my mind. I am hardly caps fond, and I find it rude to call me that instead of my username. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 19:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What a coincidence. I too consider rude your use of the caps. And since you've used caps in almost every reply here, I logically assumed you enjoy using it.--Kamikaze 19:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The Best TNG episode
It seems a consensus has been reached above regarding the removal of Entertaiment Weekly best episode list. However, I still believe an addition regarding the best episode should be appropriate, especially considering the The Best of Both Worlds (TNG episode) article mentions the following:

"Many fans and critics regard and praise them as the best episodes of the entire Star Trek saga, having achieved an almost cinematic level of story and scope. With this episode, and with its embarkation upon an unprecedented fourth season, The Next Generation was considered to have finally emerged from the shadow of its predecessor. It won Emmy Awards for "Outstanding Sound Editing for a Series" and "Outstanding Sound Mixing for a Drama Series" and was nominated for two others: "Outstanding Visual Effects for a Series" and "Outstanding Art Direction for a Series." It appeared in TV Guide's 100 Most Memorable Moments in TV History feature in its July 1, 1995 edition, and also in another issue on the 100 greatest TV episodes of all time."

Paramount's also consider BOBW the best episode, however, two editors think we should discount this as simply an opinion. To that I would say the Star Trek canon is based on Paramount "opinions", and the latter are accepted. This being said, I believe an addition of BOBW as widely regarded best episode should be appropriate.--Kamikaze 19:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, fine, I'll compromise, no matter how rude you are, and creating images with side comments attacking other others, but for wikipedia. The opinion of Paramount can be added if it's worded that it is an opinion. I will support that. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 19:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Were I as rude as you think I am I would enjoy placing a warning for personal attack on your talk page right now for calling me "rude". You should learn to comment on one's contributions not on one's person. As regards the article, as you can see above, this isn't just about Paramount's opinion, it's about multiple secondary sources which consider BOBW the best episode not only of TNG but of the entire saga.--Kamikaze 19:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the article should mention the high regard that fans and critics have for "The Best of Both Worlds", perhaps in the History section. However, I don't think that it's accurate to state that Paramount's official position is that "The Best of Both Worlds" is the best episode. The "Ultimate Trek: Star Trek's Greatest moments" special selected the "best episode" by an internet-based fan poll. It's a bit of a stretch to label this "Paramount's official position". Acegikmo1 01:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, a notion of "best episode" is highly subjective. If anything, call it a "notable episodes" section that lists a variety of notable ones (but that alone is also disputable). enderminh 21:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We already agreed that such a list should not be included. As I have said above, mentioning the high impact of BOBW would be suitable for the "Episodes" section.--Kamikaze 07:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the episode section would be more appropriate.--Kamikaze 06:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Highlighting a single episode as being particularly notable might be going into too much minutiae for the series article -- citing BOBW (or any episode that's received significant spotlight, like The High Ground is now in Ireland) as winning heaps of praise might just be best on that particular episode's article. --EEMeltonIV 10:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hardly. This widely acclaimed episode both by fans and critics significantly contributed to the series' renown. BOBW "won Emmy Awards for "Outstanding Sound Editing for a Series" and "Outstanding Sound Mixing for a Drama Series" and was nominated for two others: "Outstanding Visual Effects for a Series" and "Outstanding Art Direction for a Series." It appeared in TV Guide's 100 Most Memorable Moments in TV History feature in its July 1, 1995 edition, and also in another issue on the 100 greatest TV episodes of all time." That's notable enough not only for the episode but the series itself. By this episode, Star Trek TNG become one of the first series to concentrate on cliffhangers, BOBW being "cited as a reason that season-enders are popular today." (Cliffhanger). Thus, this is no small detail and certainly we're not going into too much minutiae for the series article.--Kamikaze 14:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point(s). Then rather than putting a spotlight on episodes (i.e. saying "BoBW won X, Y and Z") let's keep the focus on TNG and phrase it in terms of "TNG received the widget award for best use of lasers (in "BOBW"), spiffiest Englishman's tears (for etc. episode) and Z". Make sense? We can put it under a new section, "Awards," "Recognitions" or some such --EEMeltonIV 17:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why was the best episodes list removed? Think of it this way.  The article is not written for the avid Star Trek fan who already knows everything.  The article should inform the person who WANTS to know about ST:TNG.  A natural question for that person to ask is, "Which episodes of TNG are the best?" or "Which episode can I watch to see if I would like TNG?"  A top 10 list would help such a person.  Let's not get so concerned with disagreements over whether the list is "obejctive".  It's one list.  If there are others out there, list them too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.85.146.59 (talk) 04:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Please see the rest of this discussion about a simple list of favorites based on an internet poll being non-verifiable, non-notable. --EEMeltonIV 17:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The list from Entertainment weekly was not based on an internet poll. It was selected by the editors of the magazine.  Magazine selections are usually considered to be quite notable (e.g. Time's Person of the Year). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.145.134 (talk • contribs)
 * No objections from me. However, as I have pointed out above, I think the addition of BOBW information in the episode section (not in another one as someone suggested) would be most suitable for the article.--Kamikaze 13:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Fiction noticeboard
A new noticeboard, Fiction noticeboard, has been created. - Peregrine Fisher 18:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This noticeboard has been deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard. Please disregard the above post. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Themes
This section transitions from plot summary to analysis, none of which is cited. While I agree with much of the content, lacking citation it reads like OR and non-NPOV. The use of passive voice -- i.e. not attributing criticism and praise -- is particularly problematic, as is the "some" people-ish weasely language. Anyhow, here it is. If anyone can offer citations for these assertions, please re-add. (Some of this is production summary that can go elsewhere in the article; I will extract and place into article as I continue to poke at it.) --EEMeltonIV 23:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Struck-through text has been returned to article in another section. --EEMeltonIV 23:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Themes
 * The series greatly expands on a secondary theme of TOS: the idealism of humanity's dedication to improving itself.


 * It also continues TOS ' s approach of using extraterrestrial species and science fiction elements as a means of exploring many real-world social, political, personal and spiritual issues. Many episodes have an intentional philosophical or moral message. The series attempts to depict Gene Roddenberry's optimistic and unwavering vision of a future in which the human race has done away with racism, sexism, prejudice, greed, and poverty, and dedicated itself almost entirely to peaceful scientific pursuits.


 * TNG has been praised for being more in the spirit of "traditional" idea-based science fiction than other action/adventure franchises which became more common between 1970 and 2000. However, it has also been criticized for shying away from conflict and character drama and too often having the crew solve its challenges through the discovery or invention of hitherto-unknown technology (known as Treknobabble).


 * Gene Roddenberry continued to be credited as executive producer of TNG though his influence lessened due to his declining health as the series progressed, with responsibility for the show gradually shifting to producer Rick Berman. When Roddenberry died in 1991, Berman officially took over and under his guidance, some feel the series came to rely more on action and conflict.


 * The series also contains many story elements that are found in all the Star Trek series. For instance, an alien (Spock) or android (Data) is a member of the crew, and a lot of dialogue revolves around explaining human customs to the alien or android (trying to enlighten the human viewer in the process). Another recurring theme across the different series is the idea of a temporal paradox.

Recurring elements
The significance/inclusion of these items seems fairly arbitrary. Picard's pursuit of companionship fills up maybe a handful of episodes; his musical interests probably crop up in more episodes than his romantic ones. Ditto the Riker-Troi-Worf material. "Recurring elements" in and of itself (and the list below) reads more like plot summary, which this article really doesn't need more of; more appropriate would be (cited) information on the real-world topics alluded to elsewhere, such as drug addiction in Symbiosis, terrorism in The High Grounds, medical ethics in Ethics, etc. Nevertheless, I've pasted the excised material below for easy access if anyone wants to tweak it or copy-and-paste it to character articles. --EEMeltonIV 23:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Data is constantly seeking to understand the nature of humanity and become "more human." As the series begins, he is often depicted as being hopelessly clueless as to the subtleties of humanity, but he gradually gains a comprehension of several complex concepts, including (but not limited to) friendship, romance, humor, loyalty, selflessness and creativity.
 * Captain Picard makes a number of attempts at romance but ultimately remains single, even throughout the series' four spin-off films. His romantic interests included, most prominently, a hot and cold relationship with Dr. Crusher which was complicated by the fact that Crusher's husband was killed in action while under Picard's command.  He also had several short-lived flings with non-recurring female characters.
 * The character of Q appeared semi-frequently over the series' run, including both the premiere and final episodes, during which he put humanity (in the person of Picard) on trial. He is also responsible for the Federation's first 24th Century contact with the Borg.  In Q's appearances on other Trek series, he often referenced Picard and the Enterprise crew.
 * The courtship of Troi by both Riker and Worf spanned the series' entire run. It is revealed in the first episode that Riker and Troi are one another's Imzadi, a very intimate bond between a Betazoid and another.  Their relationship at that point, and for much of the series, leaned strongly toward friendship rather than romance.  In the late seasons, Worf made a play for Deanna's heart, but Riker ultimately marries her in Star Trek: Nemesis.
 * The Federation's relations with the Klingons and Romulans are major plot points, as the Enterprise finds itself in the heart of conflicts with (and between) both races at various times.   This ties into Worf's continual exploration of his Klingon heritage and his relationship with his illegitimate son.

Recurring characters and guest stars
I've looked at a few TV series featured articles -- The X-Files, Dr. Who and The West Wing (TV series), to be specific -- and they all have limited or no space devoted to these types of characters. This article's recurring characters list seems only to have 2+ appearances as a requirement to appear; however, I don't see anything particularly notable about, say, Ensign Gomez. I don't see anything particularly notable based solely on number of appearances (think of Mr. Leslie from TOS); indeed, some of the most significant characters appear only once (e.g. Scotty, Spock)

As for the guest stars, I don't see a citation for their notability. Looks to me that they're just actors doing their job, i.e. showing up on a TV set and pretending to be an imaginary character.

I'm for now axing both parts, but my next edit will be to return some cross-Trek characters elsewhere in the article.--EEMeltonIV 02:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Two hours?
The article says: Star Trek: The Next Generation premiered the week of September 28, 1987 to some 27 million viewers[1] with the two-hour pilot "Encounter at Farpoint"... Isn't Encounter at Farpoint just one and a half hour rather than two hours? --88.149.115.203 04:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it was a two hour broadcast since it there were commercials. - Koweja 04:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing the Best Episodes sub-section
In the above sections, "The Best TNG episode" and "Ultimate_Trek:_Star_Trek's_Greatest_moments", it was discussed and agreed upon that the "Best Episodes" sub-section should be removed, aside from one person wanting to keep it. My position:


 * 1) A "best of" or "top 10/50100" list is highly subjective.
 * 2) Entertainment Weekly is not a recognised official or expert on the Star Trek franchise, nor is any other publication that I'm aware of.
 * 3) Just because a magazine published the list it does not make it notable to this article.

I am removing the section since the majourity agrees on it's removal. Gh5046 08:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't participated in the discussion on this section before. However, I do have some comments to make on your decisions for deletion:
 * Yes, a "best of" or "top 'N'" is highly subjective.
 * Yes, Entertainment Weekly is not a recognized official or expert on the Star Trek franchise, but it is a periodical that specializes in covering entertainment media, which includes Star Trek. Also, Starlog could be considered an expert in the Star Trek franchise.
 * However, a prominent publication (such as either of the above) publishing such a poll is a verifiable source from a notable publication. I think that this makes it notable for one of the Star Trek articles.  Someone should decide which one, it may even be this one.
 * So, this is my input on this topic. &mdash; Val42 (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It being subjective alone is enough to warrant removal. This article doesn't need to list or link to top 5/10/50 lists, if a reader wants information on articles they can check out the episode list.  Gh5046 (talk) 06:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It being subjective is enough to warrant removal if this list were made by a Wikipedia editor. It would also warrant removal if the poll were done by a Wikipedia editor.  However, item number three above warrants its inclusion in one of the Star Trek articles. &mdash; Val42 (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a minor edit. I happened to have just read something, so had the cite. Sean.Roach (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

35mm?? the dvd release looks like video
are the 35mm prints preserved? will there ever be a restored version of the next generation that doesn't look like a fuzzy mess? the original series is much crisper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.174.64 (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series
I am writing an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the talk page would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - LA @ 17:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Officer to Enlisted Ratio
Apparently officers outnumber enlisted personnel in Star Trek. Aside from O'Brien, officers do everything. Board an enemy starship? Send the officers! Need a landing party? Gather the captain, XO, and other senior officers. Repair job? Have the officer in charge of engineering climb into the crawl space. What's up with that? Jigen III (talk) 10:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is Roddenberry's utopian future! Members of Starfleet are supposed to be the futures astronauts. The astronauts of today have college educations and their accompanying degrees, and when in the military they are commissioned. Roddenberry's Starfleet is the same way. At least that is what I read the reason is.


 * The way I look at, shit is breaking all day. When there is an episode that is just the day that they decide to be hands on. There are a lot of episodes with Geordi ordering "crewmen" around to "fix" things. When they have an away mission it is SOP to send the XO, probably because of the chances of encountering something that needs to be dealt with diplomatically. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters
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). Ikip (talk) 08:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Change reference to "gender neutral" so it is accurate
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 67.232.125.57 (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 86.158.209.181 (talk) 09:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The season synopses are not very thorough or consistent.
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.
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 76.198.245.12 (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 99.182.109.247 (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). -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The 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 ??
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 (talk • contribs) 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
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
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)

GOCE
Mlpearc  pull my chain   'Tribs  01:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * All links updated.

Seriously, no pictures?
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? 76.19.26.248 (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree with that assessment. This article needs pictures. It should be no problem to call the copyright holders and get some approved for wikipedia. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 12:41, 13 June 2021 (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 // &#9775;  // 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
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. 99.240.141.220 (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Notable guest appearances
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
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 97.102.57.248 (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Banned/censored episodes?
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.81.156.125.60 (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
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)

✅ - 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)

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

ST:TNG
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!" (http://www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-Generation-Complete-Series/dp/B000RZIGVS).  Here's another spoofing the show: "Subject: ST:TNG The Lost Episodes" (xse.com/leres/gems/sttng.html).  And yet a third describing a pinball game about the show: "Common Abbreviations: 	STTNG, ST:TNG, STNG" (http://www.ipdb.org/machine.cgi?id=2357).  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)

I would argue TNG is a more common known abbreviation to star trek fans than STTNG ever was/will be. saying that though we should always be avoiding unclear abbreviations regardless unless we have a source from creators that this was the intended shortened name for it (example Star Trek: Enterprise was marketed under the name Enterprise and would be an acceptable abbreviation to general public). my 2 cents on this. just cause we can find an abbreviation doesn't make it the official ones. 101.167.226.85 (talk) 06:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Wil Wheaton's reason for leaving the show
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: https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Wil-Wheaton-leave-Star-Trek-The-Next-Generation-1 24.108.102.4 (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Gates McFadden was fired after the first season, rehired for the third season
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 . Here's one from an interview with Rick Berman, the producer, it aired in 2006.  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)

Inconsistencies in numbering
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? 2.124.86.240 (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)

List of episode names
I went to the main article for List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes and it is much better than the list here. Is there an objection to removing this list and just referring people to click on a wiki-link to that page if they want to see a list of episodes? It seems so redundant to have them listed in two places, and the list there contains more information the the one here. If I don't get any objections in the next 48 hours, I am going to implement the change. StarHOG (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * MasterSituationMonitor.jpg