Talk:Treknobabble

(untitled)
OK, while perhaps "the ghetto of fandom" was out of bounds NPOV-wise, I don't see why "a fond wink within fandom" isn't NPOV.

The term "treknobabble" tends to be used disparagingly, yet fans talking in-depth about Star Trek often refer to those conversations (or BBSes or whatever) as "treknobabble" -- to the point that there's an article on a prominent SF web site called Treknobabble.

To me that looks like fans winking at themselves and at their reputations. What's so non-NPOV about that? --Michael 08:48 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * OK, I might have gotten over-zealous with the NPOV razor, I think I just tarred it with the same brush as the previous comment. I guess it just wasn't very clear to me so I thought you were embellishing with an opinion. Interesting article BTW. Darkov 05:53 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

We need to reverse the polarity on this article and inject some examples into its reactor core. Koyaanis Qatsi 08:54 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Ummm... That's kind of what the web links contain.  Plenty of examples, both from critical viewpoints and fan viewpoints. --Michael 09:02 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * I just meant it might be nice to have one or two examples within the article itself. But I'm not a trekkie, and I see this article is a bit contentious already, so I'm just going to make the suggestion and steer clear.  If I hadn't seen any of the episodes, I wouldn't necessarily have a good idea of what the article's on about.  Koyaanis Qatsi


 * OK, I guess I can see your point. I'll dig up some archetypical examples, both from within the Trek world and from without.  But I'm confused why you consider this article "contentious".  I'm trying to write it from the most NPOV stance I can, and being neither a trekkie nor a trek-hater, I had thought I kept the balance pretty good.  What strikes you as contentious here?  I've described the term as used from within the Trek fold and from without.  I've given examples (through links) that come from both stances and which demonstrate all of the major uses I've documented.  Where is the contention?


 * I don't see any contention either. In my mind it's pretty clear what he's talking about and that it's a real phenomenon and worthy of documenting as a cultural artefact. You might be reacting to the light-hearted style it's written in and think Michael is being flippant, or figure that it's too obscure outside "trekkidom", but anyone watching the show in a critical way would pick up on it and anyone who read the article then watched the show with it in mind would notice it. Darkov 06:04 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

''"We've learned that if we uncouple the Transporter's Heisenberg Compensators and allow them to rescramble randomly, we can beam a Holodeck object... or a person... off the grid." - Star Trek: The Next Generation, "Ship in a Bottle," in which captain Picard simulates technobabble to fool a naive holodeck character.'' This is a very bad example. Not only is it SUPPOSED to be impossible but it also is a correct statement. With the fictional compensators disabled particles would rescramble randomly because of Heisenberg principle. Even if it were perfectly accurate, how would this not be an example of simulating treknobabble? The whole point of this is that it sounds plausible because there's only a vague idea of how it works. JRM · Talk 10:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Er... no. Picard is talking about letting the compensators "rescramble randomly" after "uncoupling" them, whatever that means, not the particles they're supposed to be compensating for. It's unclear if it means anything at all.
 * While IMO this is Treknobabble, this is probably not the best example. An ideal example (among others) can be found in the episode "Rascals", when Riker is trying to explain the functioning of the main computer to (and to confound) one of the Ferengi who have taken over the ship.  In effect, Riker is babbling about 'Treknology'. E Pluribus Anthony 14:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've since added this example, and wikified relevant terms. Enjoy! E Pluribus Anthony 20:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not actually convinced that either of these are really examples of said topic. First, I will take at JRM's word that the quote is correct, but I will say that his interpretation is incorrect. The anon user is correct, however--it is the particles that are scrambling randomly (due to the Heisenberg principle). This is clearly the case, because if the compensators were uncoupled (meaning "disconnected") they would be functioning no more than your monitor when disconnected from your computer. Without the device compensating for the Heisenberg principle (thus, "Heisenberg compensators") the particles would scramble randomly. If the quote is in fact acurate, it is most plausible that Picard simply mispoke (or was just lazy in his verbage). The main point, however, is this: in both of these cases the character in question is lying to the listener in the script. In Riker's example he is lying to the Ferengi (as he does not want them to take over the ship) and in Picard's he is lying to Professor Moriarty (to trick him into falling for a plan). The characters actually know that what they are saying is wrong. The distinction is analogous to the difference between an episode of Law and Order with factual inacuracies about the criminal justice system vs. a character in Law and Order lying about the crimial justice system to another character with some gain in mind. JEEZZ, I'm a windbag. Did I just overanalyze this? Sorry. -- Chris 12:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but that's not bad. :)  I somewhat disagree: Treknobabble needn't entail someone telling the truth.  Dissect the term and consider its roots.


 * Regarding the Picard example, it entails a description (or misdescription) – and a viewer having to make assumptions – about a nonexistent device (either the transporter or a constituent Heisenberg compensator) and tying them to a theoretical principle. I'm unsure it's babbling per se, but it does entail "Treknology" (and retained it out of deference to the Wikipedian who added).


 * I fundamentally disagree about the Riker example. (Yes: I did add it, but here's why.)  While it's reasonable to assume Riker is using subterfuge to describe the functioning of the main computer to Morta, it's debatable if Riker is lying to do so.  In addition, non-canon information supports some basic elements of his description (e.g., three computer cores, FTL processing) and there's insufficient information to believe that he misled Morta about those details.  At face value: Riker merely "babbled" the technical information to confound – a pure example of titular Treknobabble.


 * If the truth hurts, :) salient examples are abound in other episodes; for example, where they use the transporter to reintegrate characters, like Picard in "Lonely Among Us" or a haggardly Pulaski in "Unnatural Selection," et al.  See: I'm similarly long-winded; anyhow, I hope this helps.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Aha, I see. So while Riker's bit about "isopalavial interface" and "firomactal drive unit" may be him lying, the FTL and triple computer core bit is him telling the truth, which constitutes Treknobabble. You're probably right.  My first comment was pretty intense, but to be honest I don't care that much.  I think the article is pretty good.  Thanks for your quick response! -- Chris 03:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Day of Honor is also an episode which also contained that particular deus ex machina. The book is just a novelisation. --Postbagboy 04:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Tech Tags in scripts
I have copies of the scripts for all TNG and DS9 seasons, and some of these are from before the (TECH) tag is replaced with actual babble. In fact, Here's a quick list of TNG and DS9 episodes in which I've found the "(TECH)" substring:

The Next Generation 3.07 The Enemy ("Medical supernumeraries are taking DNA (TECH) samples from several crew members") 3.21 Hollow Pursuits 4.05 Remember Me ("We're moving into phase now (tech)... there's your warp bubble, Wesley...") 4.11 Data's Day 4.16 Galaxy's Child 6.05 Schisms 6.06 True Q ("If we use (TECH), we can devise a mechanism that integrates into the existing system while it is in operation.") 6.13 Aquiel ("Especially if I'd seen you in a (TECH) wig...") 6.20 The Chase 6.22 Suspicions 6.25 Timescape ("They are carrying several pieces of (TECH) equipment, making it impossibly cramped on their side of the Tube.") 6.26 Descent (several instances) 7.06 Phantasms ("...and grabs a (TECH) TOOL off the conduit.") 7.09 Force of Nature 7.14 Sub Rosa (twice in one sentence: "The colony's (TECH) systems are functioning normally... as are the (TECH) systems.")

Deep Space Nine 1.04 A Man Alone 1.12 Vortex ("moves into a (tech) field... the quality of the vortex matter shifts subtly in color...") 2.26 The Jem'Hadar 3.02 The Search, part 2 ("The crew of the Defiant, Sisko, Dax, O'Brien, Bashir and T'Rul are seated in a circle, eyes closed, small (TECH) devices attached to their heads.") 3.05 Second Skin 3.07 Civil Defense 3.20 Through the Looking Glass:	("O'Brien steps up to the transporter and plays the (TECH) device over the base, then joins Sisko on the pad.") 4.07 Starship Down ("We HEAR the (TECH) pulse, and this time...") 4.20 Shattered Mirror ("A puzzled Sisko notices an odd-looking (TECH) device lying conspicuously on the table" and a LOT of other appearances) 5.02 The Ship 5.09 The Ascent 5.14 In Purgatory's Shadow 5.17 A Simple Investigation 5.25 In the Cards ("meters of plasma-(TECH) conduit") 6.08 Resurrection 6.12 Who Mourns for Morn

Any takers? --195.18.86.106 18:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Examples
I want to restart the discussion about the examples given. IMO they are not really ideal because apart from the Nemesis quote, they are all situations in which the character is at least partially trying to be deceptive. While they involve technobable, using examples that are both technobable and deceit is confusing. There are SO SO MANY examples of technobable that is used honestly, it would be a lot clearer if those were the type of examples used. Also, to really nail the point, go for quotes about devices that actually resolve plot points. The main thing that marks technobable / treknobable is that it is a piece of technology that exists solely for plot purposes and often appears only to cause problems or solve them. Better examples might be found in Voyager or Enterprise because they've been the ones to have the deus ex machina charge levelled at them. TOS, TNG and DS9 still had an insane amount of bad science and invented terms, but on balance the plots werent generally resolved by "I can modify the blahmophasic thingimator to emit thingic particleons" "it worked!" Example, TNG: Darmok. Through the episode Picard is trapped on a planet which is blanketed by a field that prevents transporting. O Brien tries to break through it by doing treknobable things to the transporter, but it doesn't work and the episode resolution hinges more on Picard's breakthrough in communicating with the opposing captain. Or TNG: All Good Things, where the tech solution actually turns out to be the cause of the problem and it's the characters' reasoning and intuition that ultimately solve the problems. 121.45.26.10 11:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * i agree strongly. Using examples where the characters 'in-universe' use trekbabble is not good. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.201.100.166 (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
 * I absolutely agree with the part about deus-ex-machina charge, the mentioned series are in particular so bad because of inventing treknobabble solutions for many problems... I might add that could be the main difference between technobabble in general and treknobabble. arny (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

removed usless paragraph
I removed the following from the page:


 * "The positronic field generated by the interdimensional subspace reflex system is causing a pulsary overload in our sensory warp transducer, captain."
 * From Star Trek: Nemesis

It was under the section about the episode Rascles. But this is from a movie, not from that episode. Either it should be given its own paragraph of explanation, or it should be removed. - Rebent

Proposed and tagging for merger
Since Treknobabble is subcategory of Technobabble, I imagine no reason except the fandom's curiosity and amusement, for the existence of the article. I'm sorry for the eventual expedience for my action of tagging the article. All the best, --Biblbroks 's talk 07:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (edited afterwards> I oppose the deletion of the samename entry in wiktionary though. --Biblbroks 's talk 07:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)