Talk:Time's Arrow (Star Trek: The Next Generation)

Notability
This episode was part of an AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time's Arrow (Star Trek: The Next Generation). My reading of that discussion is that a Notability tag for this episode is appropriate at this time, as the article itself does not clearly establish the notability of the episode, and merely being part of a notable series does not make each item that's part of the series individually notable. Additionally, having the article tagged may lead to improvement by drawing additional attention to the issues with it.

Based on the AFD discussion, there appears to be support for at least tagging this article, if not in fact redirecting until such time as the notability concerns can be satisfied, as was done for the two other episodes that were part of the AFD.

I hope it doesn't need to be said that the best possible outcome of this discussion would be for the notability concerns to be addressed. DonIago (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you emphatically. You yourself stated in the AfD that you "hop[ed] it won't come to actual deletion for" this article and the others you nominated. In other words, I believe you acknowledge that the episodes are notable. Whether or not you meant to concede that, the fact remains that the community has long since decided that all episodes of certain television series are per se notable, of which the Star Trek franchises are perhaps the canonical examples. To single out one episode or group of episodes within the series as allegedly non-notable is arbitrary, and to an observer makes the article look absurd.


 * Your real objection is not that this or any other episode is "non-notable," but that there are not enough references within the article. That, however, is not a notability issue. The statement in the tag you added, that the article may not meet the notability standard for including the article within Wikipedia, is thus, I believe, inaccurate. Unlike some other types of tags, a "notability" tag is an assertion about the topic of the article, not about the current state of the article itself.


 * It would of course be desirable for additional references, including not-in-universe ("real-world") references, to be added to this or any article, although in my view, a paucity of secondary references in a Star Trek episode article like this one actually ranks quite low on the list of Wikipedia's Problems. You feel more strongly about the desirability of adding secondary references to this and the other episode articles, and that is fine. What is less fine, though, is using notability tags and the deletion processes, not for their intended purpose of questioning and removing articles that genuinely don't belong on Wikipedia, but as an attention-gathering step to compel an accelerated improvement of the referencing. This might be a proper use of some other tags (I don't think they are needed, but they would at least be defensible); but is a misuse of the "notability" tag. And it is certainly not a proper use of AfD (to the point that if I had come across your AfD group nomination while it was pending, I would probably have procedurally closed it as out-of-process).


 * For these reasons, the "notability" tag should not be re-added to this or any similar article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said at the AFD, I was specifically "encouraged" to raise the subject via AFD here. If that suggestion was in error then my recommendation would be that the person who suggested it be spoken with.
 * I hope there are citations out there that could be used to establish that this episode is individually notable. Frankly I'm not at all confident of such given that no such citation has been provided thus far, and consequently I question how notable the episode is. It is not uncommon to redirect individual episodes of tv series for which notability has not been established, which is after all what I recommended with the AFD besides the less-invasive option of keeping the tag in place. I never would have suggested nor supported simply deleting the article whole-cloth.
 * You claim that "the community has long since decided that all episodes of certain television series are per se notable". I would appreciate it if you could link me to the relevant conversation, as it seems highly relevant to this discussion. DonIago (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe you have misread what wrote there (although I have just pinged him so he can tell us himself). As he stated, a notability tag is not about article-quality, but about whether the topic of the article deserves an article at all. That is the same thing I have said. He said the logical consequence of an unresolved notability tag would be deletion, but I don't think he said that as a suggestion that you nominate the articles for deletion; he said it as a reduction ad absurdum meaning that if any sort of tag was needed, it would not be a "notability" tag. Again, that is the same thing I have said above. I also agree with his last sentence.
 * As reflected in the history of AfDs over the past dozen years, under no circumstances is this community going to start deleting Star Trek episode articles, nor should it. (This was also explained to you, by several editors, in this thread back in January.) I consider that your persistence in this "notability" quest on these articles over a period of months is unhelpful to encyclopedia-building, and wish you would direct your energies in another direction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we all simply need to read Television episodes for guidance on what to do in this situation. Under "problem articles", it states that the article should be tagged with a notability banner, but it shouldn't be merged if more sources are available that could demonstrate the notability. Instead there should be a movement to improve the article or suggest improvement on the tag page. So tagging it for notability is perfectly fine, as it simply shows that some work needs to be done to clarify the notability of the episode article. Regarding Star Trek articles, we can be assured that every episode has some third party sourcing available that demonstrates the notability. Besides, the absolute worst case scenario? The article becomes a redirect - which then gets reversed when someone has the time to expand the article. All we're going to lose in the majority of cases are some plot sections which need some heavy trimming anyway. Miyagawa (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion, but I disagree with this as well. Tagging an episode article for notability is warranted where there is a genuine dispute as to whether the episode is notable or not. Here, there isn't any, and seeking the deletion or redirection of Star Trek episode articles, in my opinion, would be merely disruptive point-making. So too is tagging them as being the subject of a notability dispute; anyone who doubts the notability of Star Trek episode articles, in the context of Wikipedia, doesn't know what he or she is doing. Obviously you know what you are doing, given your editing interests; your concern about improving the references is perfectly reasonable; but that is about improving the references and not about notability. As I said above, a "notability" tag, unlike some other tags, is addressed to the topic of the article, not merely the current state of the article itself. Tag this article for reference improvement, if you must (though personally I can't imagine why this is worth doing, since anyone wanting to add references can and should do so to this or any article), but not for notability. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Strongly agree with every single one of the comments by, above. Quite well-written, thank you. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 07:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

✅. I've added some info from secondary sources to the article. The second-part of the episode was nominated for three Creative Arts Emmy Awards, and won two. It's notable. Please see DIFF. Thank you, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 09:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Additional suggested sources


Some additional sources at links above. :)

Perhaps these will be helpful to editors in the future.

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 07:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Why is Carbon Creek in See Also?
The ENT Carbon Creek episode has nothing to do with time travel, Data (or androids at all) nor 19th century San Francisco. TNG Episodes Time's Arrow has nothing to do with Vulcans, 20th century Pennsylvania nor first contact. How is Carbon Creek connected to Time's Arrow such that it should included in See Also? Jyg (talk) 08:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * It was added by an editor in 2017 who hasn't edited since 2021. You could perhap ping them if you're so inclined, but otherwise I'd support removing it. DonIago (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1.5 years later... Done! Jyg (talk) 02:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)