Talk:The Slaver Weapon

Old comment moved for smoothness
The meat in the Slaver box is tested and found to be "protoplasmic and poisonous", but no suggestion is made that it "turned poisonous", since that would contradict the description of the Slaver boxes as containing stasis fields. Asat 09:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The above comment was found lodged between the two boxes above. I have moved it below in a minor copyedit. DQweny (talk) 01:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Expansion and partial revertion
While the recent expansion was welcome, I removed some of the material given;
 * "The Kzinti would have made an appearance on Star Trek: Enterprise in an episode tentatively named "Kilkenny Cats", but the show was canceled before this could be filmed." This was uncited and has been for several months.
 * "The Slaver Weapon was later novelized by Alan Dean Foster in "Star Trek Log Ten" published by Ballantine Books in January 1978. The entire book was devoted to this one episode. Niven expressed his displeasure with the fact that a 3rd party author had been used to adapt his own work without asking him first, but contrary to rumor, he never threatened legal action. " As a citation, a fan created site was used. I have checked on this with the RS noticeboard for a similar cite, I was advised that fan sites are generally not accepted.
 * "Niven returned to the original concept of pirates using a black hole to disable ships.." The further adaptations appear not to be of the Star Trek story, but the story that it itself was derived from. Any information on adaptations should appear on that article page.
 * "There are several features of the storyline that set The Slaver Weapon apart from the majority of Star Trek episodes. For instance, it is the only Star Trek episode or movie of the "Kirk era" that does not feature the character of Captain Kirk (The first TOS episode The Cage is considered a "Pike era" story). It is also the only episode of the animated series where anyone dies or is killed onscreen." This appears to be trivia, which is generally discouraged. I could see no reason to have it other than as an item of trivia. Alastairward (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The source is now cited. The same citation appears in other material on the wiki and passes my smell test.
 * The reference in question directly quotes Larry Niven. The fact that the quote appears on a "fan cite" doesn't detract from the veracity. We reject fan sites because the contain personal reflection, not because they are automatically wrong. In the example you linked to above, one editor noted the difference between FS and SPS, and suggested that the evidence be weighed against those competing guidelines. In this case I have no doubt that the quote in question is from Niven himself.
 * The fact that Niven's original ST script turned into an award winning book after it was rejected for the series seems on-topic.
 * The fact that the story in question was developed as a direct adaptation of a previous short story leads to several differences between it and most ST:TAS episodes. I did not write this text, but I did feel it to be interesting enough to leave in.
 * Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You added a cite based on another wiki and a fan site is a fan site. What make it reliable or authoritative? How do we know Niven is being quoted directly, on the basis that the editor is a fan?
 * And according to your own cite, the story was not an original ST script, but was based on another story, from another franchise. The adaptations were of this original story, not the ST episode. That's why I reverted it, simply thinking something interesting is not enough.
 * And what of the trivia? What is important about noting the characters that do not appear in a certain episode? Alastairward (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As to the first reference, it's used on the Wikipedia in the ST:E article. Apparently I am not the only editor to believe it's worthy. As to the second. it's not like we're trying to promote this article for FA. If we were, I would contact Niven myself and get a direct quote. As to the rest, this boils down to a simple difference of opinion. I think the average reader would find these two paragraphs interesting and germane, but YMMV. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "...FA. If we were, I would contact Niven myself and get a direct quote" - that would not help at all, as it would be wp:OR.
 * "in the ST:E article" - Just because wp:Other stuff exists doesn't mean it is good stuff.- Sinneed  04:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)  ... nor does it mean it is bad stuff... just stuff -  Sinneed  04:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A direct quote from a person involved is not OR. Let me demonstrate:
 * If Niven put that quote in a book, it would not be OR. Right?
 * If someone quoted Niven's quote in their own book, that would not be OR either, right?
 * If someone quoted Niven on a web page, instead of a dead tree, that's not OR either. See?
 * If you don't understand the difference between "research" (ie, looking stuff up) and "original research" (ie, making up new stuff) then you need to go and read the OR guidelines. The real problem with quoting people is V, not OR. Since most e-mails are assumed to be private and are not easily accessed by other editors, then they are generally removed for that reason. In this case, that is not a problem.
 * Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * For future reference, instead of cat fighting and edit wars, you could always ask the man himself. Larry Niven generally likes his fans and clarifying what he needs to and is happy to be quoted in any context. He's one of the friendliest authors out there.

Appropriate cites

 * "The Kzinti would have made an appearance on Star Trek:Enterprise in an episode tentatively named "Kilkenny Cats", but the show was canceled before this could be filmed." This was uncited and has been for several months. A link to memory-alpha, a fan wiki, is now used to cite this.


 * "The Slaver Weapon was later novelized by Alan Dean Foster in "Star Trek Log Ten" published by Ballantine Books in January 1978. The entire book was devoted to this one episode. Niven expressed his displeasure with the fact that a 3rd party author had been used to adapt his own work without asking him first, but contrary to rumor, he never threatened legal action. " As a citation, a fan created site was used.

I have checked on both of these here, fan cites and other wikis have not been accepted as reliable sources for citations. As external links, they may be useful, but haven't been so for inline citations. This is covered in WP:RS and WP:SPS too. Alastairward (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

3O
As worded, I can't support the "The Kzinti would have made an appearance" statement based on a fan site. A wiki is not going to be a wp:RS. Is there an objection to the content? It seems harmless enough, though I would class it is trivia. Compromise idea: Would softening the wording to "There are rumors that...", and leaving the (very weak) source in be worth considering? Perhaps a footnote, with the link to the EL in the footnote? Just ideas.

wp:BLP would certainly apply to the Niven statement. It must be removed at once and either reliably sourced or not re-added. I will do so now.- Sinneed  03:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Adaptations

 * "Niven returned to the original concept of pirates using a black hole to disable ships.."

A section relating to adaptations of the story this story was based on was added. This Star Trek story was based on The Soft Weapon, a story from another fictional franchise, Known Space. The Soft Weapon was expanded into another lengthier story as part of this other fiction franchise.

Including it here may give a false impression that it was this Star Trek story that was expanded upon, when it itself was actually an adaptation too. Alastairward (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

3O
wp:SOFIXIT - I would encourage proposing a change, other than deletion, that would be acceptable. I would encourage the editor supporting the content as-is to propose a change, other than leaving it as it is, that would be acceptable. Perhaps expanding this to show the inter-relation would be worthwhile.- Sinneed  03:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I trimmed the reference to the other franchise's story and added a note on a Star Trek related followup, which should be referenced in Niven's book, which was used for another cite. Alastairward (talk) 10:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Trivia

 * "There are several features of the storyline that set The Slaver Weapon apart from the majority of Star Trek episodes. For instance, it is the only Star Trek episode or movie of the "Kirk era" that does not feature the character of Captain Kirk (The first TOS episode The Cage is considered a "Pike era" story). It is also the only episode of the animated series where anyone dies or is killed onscreen."

If this was mentioned in a critical review, it might be notable. (As an aside I thought it's interesting was something to avoid in a debate Alastairward (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The points about this being Kirk's only non-appearance during the Kirk era and the only onscreen deaths in the animated series are valid points. If they were original research, I would agree with you. I don't agree, however, that these points are unimportant just because some renowned scholar or "critic" can't be bothered to notice it. 72.215.148.50 (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "valid"? What is this "Kirk era"? Alastairward (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to assume that you know bloody well exactly what "Kirk era" means in Star Trek context. Therefore, If you have a better term for describing "Kirk's tenure" (since I'm sure you'd have a problem with that offering too), then why not just offer it up it instead of wasting time being sarcastic? 137.198.20.48 (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Era"? "Tenure"? Cite? Alastairward (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

3O
Needs sources... lot of wp:OR there. Without sourcing it can be killed if challenged. On the trivia bit... hopefully without being offensive... it's a cartoon, is there any part of this that some/many would NOT consider trivia? It seems worthwhile, if it can be sourced. Probably does not belong in Reception.- Sinneed  03:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed it pending sources as I challenged it previously. Alastairward (talk) 09:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ship image
I have to question the relevance of the image depicting "The Kzinti Dark Stalker vessel as designed by Josh Finney" which appears to have nothing to do with episode. I suggest it is irrelevant and should be removed. MrNeutronSF (talk) 03:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)