For general discussion on this episode, visit the ENT forum at The Trek BBS.
Original Airdate Edit
Original airdate needs to be corrected. The date is 2001-11-14.
Charlie Brewer Edit
Is he listed as a guest star or a co-star? If he is a guest star, as indicated here, there should be no "credited as" comment since this is not indicated on-screen. If he is a co-star, the credit should be listed under co-stars.
Removed casting note Edit
Seeing as we don't add info to episode pages about what other Star Trek production(s) the actors have appeared in, I've chosen to remove the following note:
- "Wade Andrew Williams (Garos) previously played Trajis Lo-Tarik in VOY: "One"." --Defiant (talk) 17:12, October 27, 2013 (UTC)
- Where was it decided that we don't add this info? We have this information on a number of other episode articles as well. Tom (talk) 18:49, October 27, 2013 (UTC)
- Then please provide the link for this policy. Tom (talk) 18:52, October 27, 2013 (UTC)
- Ok. The note is back in the article. Tom (talk) 06:47, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
Please do not do that again. I've already told you I've been asked, multiple times, not to leave such casting info on episode pages, as that info is already available in the performer pages. It therefore goes against our dictum of trying not to repeat ourselves unnecessarily. This has been much to my frustration, as I've been interested, for a good while now, in attempting to make the episode pages as complete as possible, but I can see the point of it. Sorry I didn't see your request for a link to the policy. As far as I know, it's not written in stone like that but makes sense and has the backing of community consensus. Another formatting decision we have made as a community is to keep the episode pages with caps in the headings. Please do not ignore the formatting choices which have already been made. I am not an admin, so therefore do not have a good grasp of the policies and guidelines section, as I just like to concentrate on editing pages with the few relevant notions that I know have definitely been decided on. Since both the inclusion, in episode pages, of actor info regarding "other productions" and the caps in headings are site-wide changes you presumably are interested in making, please raise your points about them somewhere else; this article, meant to do with only the episode "Civilization", is not the right place to do that. --Defiant (talk) 08:52, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't looked into the actual claim that some type of information doesn't belong on this page - you may or may not be right. Generally, though, if you remove content and claim that you are doing this based on some policy or precedence, please be able to actually link to that policy (or at least some of those discussions where this has been brought up before) when asked. For what it's worth, you did actually not tell ThomasHL that you've "been asked, multiple times, not to leave such casting info on episode pages", so I believe he was right in reverting the removal of information at least for the time being. If anyone of you feels this needs further discussion, please discuss. If you continue reverting the article back and forth without providing the policy or something similar, I will end that edit war by protecting the article in its revision before this started. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 12:43, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
- I just spent some time reading through the policies and guidelines again. While the caps in the headings are an often discussed information I can see the policy. My problem is that I can remember some corrections and edits by other users regarding this style in the past, especially when I went through all of the TNG episode articles. The information about the actors on the episode pages is important in my opinion. Don't see this as a repeat but as a good information about actors being hired twice or more in different roles. There are many episode articles on MA which do have this information and it is building the web by linking to other episodes and roles. I also think there is a difference mentioning guest stars instead of recurring background performers. Just for my understanding: There is no policy or written down community consensus about this, right? Tom (talk) 13:13, October 28, 2013 (UTC)
I agree with many of your points, ThomasHL, as I do concur there is value in displaying such info on episode pages. However, I've managed to find this discussion, where the community consensus, especially among the admins, was found to be in favor of removing performer info from episode articles (though, as I've said, it wasn't set in stone). Apologies for failing to provide a link to that precedent earlier in this discussion. --Defiant (talk) 12:50, October 29, 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for the link. Actually there are two support votes an no vote against it at the end of the discussion. So I consider adding this info to the episode articles won't be a problem?! Tom (talk) 13:53, October 29, 2013 (UTC)
- If you read through the whole discussion, you will find that an additional "votes section" had been added somewhere in the middle, with several people subsequently claiming that voting shouldn't replace finding a consensus (and, because of that, those people didn't participate in that "vote"). This means the rest of the discussion mustn't be ignored in favor of "just" the tally, because it is incomplete. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 14:22, October 29, 2013 (UTC)
- Also, for what it's worth: just like that discussion has leaned towards not including this kind of information on episode pages, the other discussion has leaned towards not handling headings on episode pages different from headings on all other types of pages. ThomasHL, or anyone else, if you want to "revive" that discussion about headings so that we can streamline our guidelines in that regard, I'd definitely support that. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 14:33, October 29, 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, Cid. I agree; anything like that's open for discussion. Just not here, as this page should really be article-specific, regarding "Civilization". So, to wrap up this discussion, my wording may have been mistaken at times, for which I'm sorry. However, the result stays the same – the community consensus strongly suggests the removal of the note which I had removed. --Defiant (talk) 15:05, October 29, 2013 (UTC)