Wikia

Memory Alpha

Talk:Story arcs

37,602pages on
this wiki

Back to page

Revision as of 09:07, April 16, 2012 by 31dot (Talk | contribs)

Multi-Episode Stories (Initial discussion from TF)

Would it be possible to create a page for all multi-hangers such as Redemption and Best of Both Worlds, episode stories. This would include feature length episodes such as Emissary and Dark Frontier, cliff three parters (Vulcan Arch, Augment Arch, ect), Xindi Arch, various Dominion Archs (ie from Call to Arms to Sacrifice of Angels, and from Penumbra to What You Leave Behind). This page could also iclude situations where a story was continued, but not back to back, (ie Space Seed and Wrath of Kahn). Jaz 22:25, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that... in fact, it sounds like a good idea to me. All we gotta do is figure out what to call it -- I don't think Multi-Episode Stories will cut it. ;) But it's a good idea and would be helpful, in my opinion. --From Andoria with Love 22:29, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
That is a good idea. Just call it Arcs. Add redirects from Story arc and two-parter; those terms are already in use so they can easily be wikified to point to this new page. --9er 22:47, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Are we talking about a simple list of arcs here, with links to the various episodes, or are we talking about more? If the latter, then there might be a better way to handle this (please let's here more about your ideas, then). If it's the former, sure, why not, but we would then have to decide what exactly is an "official" arc and what isn't. -- Cid Highwind 22:52, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
This seems like an interesting idea and might be useful, but I have a couple questions of my own
  1. What about things like the "Founder arc" that went from somewhere around "The Die is Cast" to "By Inferno's Light"? I don't even know if that can be specifically defined, but it was an arc in its own right.
  2. Where on MA will this be added? I don't want it getting hidden save for recent changes list the way the parodies page was. Specifying somewhere on Main Page/temp (now obsolete) or one of the pages listed there (don't add it yet) would be nice.
  3. Related to #1, what qualifies for this? Does Q count as one big arc?
Don't get me wrong - I like the idea, I just want to make sure it's planned out before it happens. :) --Broik 20:43, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that it is necessary to have a list of two-parters and blah-parters, but it might be interesting to have an article that lists all episodes concerning some continuous developed stories, like the Section 31 in DS9 or the Maquis-related episodes in TNG, in chronological order. All the stuff where you can't simply click on the "next episode"-link on the episode page. Persons like Q might not necessarily be listed there, but could be. Story arcs or Continued subjects might be a proper name. --Memory 21:53, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Memory's idea sounds perfect, but please, no one should take the red links as license to create the article(s) before the idea has been agreed upon completely and we know what the name will be. The one concern I would have is that we would have to make sure the information didn't sound too similar to the relevant article, e.g. we need to make it a holistic (complete) view instead of a summary of what happened, if that makes sense. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 00:13, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Eh. Jaz could have easily created this page on his own without consulting anyone and there'd be no arguing. I have to laugh at Cid's contribution. People are into Jaz's suggestion but Cid says, stop: let's change it around and do something else. Memory suggests something slightly different. (I don't hear any opposition to it! Revert!) Sorry, this is ringing bells for me. I say, less wanking, more production. Jaz: you should create the page exactly as you envisioned it; no one needs permission to create a page in the regular article space. Anyone else can come by and edit it later. --9er 02:27, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Correction: It probably would have ended up on the Votes for Deletion page or something, but based on the deletion of MA:DR in place of Memory Alpha:DR (which makes absolutely no sense and defeats the purpose of having a shortcut link), I know what you mean. However, I don't think a two-part episodes count as a story arc, and as such, Memory's idea was just a refining of Jaz's. In any case, interesting idea Jaz. :-) I think we can take it a step further and discuss the changing nature of story arcs as the series went on; DS9 was the biggest influence there, and by the time ENT came around, you had multiple story arcs going on regularly. But the Vedek is right insofar as we need to decide which name to use. Weyoun 05:34, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see the point. In many cases the arcs intertwine so much, especially in the case of DS9, where do we decide one ends and another starts? --Alan del Beccio 11:54, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
In all fairness, Alan, let's be honest: you need glasses. You don't see the point in many things, be it a barnster, a duty roster, or a story arc. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 23:40, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Your attitude is not becoming of someone who wishes to be an administrator-- especially considering the amount of personal attacks you make against me, which are frankly, uncalled for. I am not here simply to agree with or blindly follow everyones suggestions. I ask questions to analyze why certain things are being suggested in attempt to understand the legitimacy and long term necessity of various "projects" are. --Alan del Beccio 19:04, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
For the record, I don't make personal attacks against you. The "Mr. Vulcan" name was intended to be an affectionate nickname. :P And I did stop when you asked me to do so. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 19:34, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I consider the comment I replied to prior to this as a personal attack. As it had nothing to do with reponding to my legitimate quesiton. --Alan del Beccio 19:51, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I apologize for that, as I didn't mean it as an attack, which isn't to say it wasn't uncalled for. As I read it now, it is inappropriate. It was mainly in response to the part about not seeing the point; your question is a legitimate one, and one with which I agree. I attempted to define the page when it was created by writing the introductory paragraphs, as it was just a list; however, my definition in the intro, if read carefully, doesn't match the lists we have. So it does need work, but as stated above could be useful. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 18:25, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)

As the starter of this debate, I've gone ahead and created Story arch. Do with it what you like, it needs a lot of work, and I'm sort of new to this. Jaz 23:18, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

9er, I don't know which comment of mine you did read, but it's surely not the one I added to this thread, right? Regarding your suggestion to simply create the page - sure, there's no permission necessary to create pages in article space, but there's nothing wrong with trying to discuss it before creation. The discussion about the article's content would have been held anyway, and the two page moves could have been avoided. Anyway, if there are any problems that are not related to this specific article, just let me know on my talk page, OK? -- Cid Highwind 12:22, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

New

I've ended the debate, and created this page. I haven't created a major page before, so feel free to change it in any way you think can help, I think some of the sections need new names, but I can't think of better ones. There is a discussion in Ten Forward for more info. Jaz 23:17, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

One question, isn't it supposed to be story arc? Or is the arc/arch thing one of those regional preferences? --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 23:41, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I seem to be consistently of the same mind as the good Vedek. As a Californian (where admittedly English seems most elastic, but the birthplace of Star Trek), 'arc' seems refer to the shape resembling '^', and consistent with connected storylines. 'Arch' refers to an architectural structure. Just my two credits. Otherwise, I'm all in favor of the new page. AureliusKirk 03:24, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
As Gilda said... 'Never mind". AureliusKirk 03:38, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
To be consistent with our naming conventions, I moved it again to "Story arcs" (plural), as in List of story arcs. -- Cid Highwind 11:42, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)


PNA

I am removing the PNA-incomplete (which I added in the first place, right after I created this page). While I feel no page is ever really complete, this one no longer needs the notice.

An inherent problem with this page

Okay, on normal series this kind of idea works fine, but as we all know, DS9 was notorious for juggling numerous season-long story arcs. For example, I added anti-alien sentiments on Bajor as an arc, but the one about Bajor joining the Federation was basically omnipresent. Another would be the Maquis, which appeared in specific episodes but were still interwoven with yet another arc, the Klingon-Cardassian War. Of course the Dominion's occupation of Cardassia could be an arc in and of itself, but I guess that yields to the Dominion War in terms of relevancy. And then there's the one about Sisko's role as the Emissary... Umm, every episode, but I guess there were specific episodes where he was "dealing" with it (way too many IMHO). Does anyone see what I'm getting at? --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 08:58, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Not to say "I told you so," but I recall forseeing this when I questioned the necessity of this page: "In many cases the arcs intertwine so much, especially in the case of DS9, where do we decide one ends and another starts?" But alas, I was told I don't see the "point in many things." It now appears that this has nearly come full circle. Nevertheless, in terms of "non-consecutive arcs", which you just added the above referenced items, perhaps it would be best to stick to the basics, that is explicit "carry overs," otherwise we might have to face numerous other intertwined episodes like all of the Kazon episodes with Culluh/Seska/Jonas/and his "contact," as well as the intertwining of three or four story lines found in "Yesterday's Enterprise", "Sarek", "The Mind's Eye", "Redemption", "Redemption II", "Unification I", "Unification II" and "Face of the Enemy", and that doesn't include the whole Worf arc from TNG that is also partially involved in that list, "The Emissary", "Sins of the Father", "Reunion", "Birthright, Part I", "Birthright, Part II"...and several others I don't really feel the need to list from TNG, DS9 & ST7. --Alan del Beccio 09:10, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • This is not as big a problem as one might think. In each episode, there is an A story and usually a B story. An "arc" takes up one of those slots in more than one episode, so in the case of Sisko or something else that took place over time, mention of episodes like "Accession" and "Rapture" is important but not every time they said emissary on screen. With others, yes, listing the episodes where it took place is a good thing, or if not then list the period over which it took place if it was just a passing thing. Makon 09:26, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for a better breakdown by type

I absolutely love the idea behind this page, but I think it is structured in a way that makes it harder than it should be to actually use it. For example I don't understand at all why the Dominion war arc is separated in a "beginning of the dominion war" and an "ending of the dominion war". Furthermore i don't understand why there should be a breakdown in Multi-Episode Arcs an Non-Consecutive Arcs. After all, it's about the events, not the real-world developments in production. Here are some specific suggestions:

  • First of all, and I think this would greatly enhance the easyness to find a specific arc, make a distinction between character driven arcs and series of events wich do not involve specific characters. aditionaly there might be species/organisation related arcs.
  1. Character driven arcs would include Khan Noonien Singh, Professor Moriarty, the data-lore-soong-story, Worfs dealings with his father, Harry Mud etc.
  2. The second categorie, events, would include the Dominion war, the xindi incident, Voyager vs. Seska, Klingon politics (tng civil war arc etc), and the borg first contact incident, among others.
  3. Aditionaly, it might be a good idea to have a categorie for species/organisation related stuf. This might be beneficial for example to have a bajoran arc where both the anti-alien sentiment-arc and the entry in the federation could be put. This way the succesion of events would be more coherent, and easyer to see.
  • Use of subdivisions of arcs would be interesting. For example i think the dominion war arc description would be drasticly more clear using this aproach. There could be a "meta-arc" for the dominion war, with subdivisions like "rising tensions" (with DS9:The Jem'Hadar, the die is cast etc), "Changeling Infiltration", and then the existing begining and ending of war sections (wich I find rather clumsy organised to begin with, i'd rather have something like "erruption of the conflict", "middle war" and "end of the war", but that's not realy the point here).
  • Short descriptions of the defining elements in these episodes. I by no means mean to add summaries, but rather something like "TOS: I, Mudd : The crew of the enterprise again encounters Mudd, who is now involved with a civilisation of androids", or something like that.

Note that I have used some examples that are as of yet absent from the page. If anyone thinks these are bad ideas, or has aditional suggestions, please say so since I feel very strongly about this and I might not be able to resist the temptation to implement some of these ideas on my own. Star Trek can be a daunting thing for people who want to get to know it, and this is exactly the kind of reference that could make the process easyer. But for that to happen, this page should be understandable for people who don't know as much about Star Trek as we do. Dog with meat 01:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this is much more complicated than I envisioned when I created the page. I think it's good how it is, but try to remember that there is a difference between a story arc and a recurring character. Jaz 02:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Two-parters vs. Feature Length

Apologies if this has been answered elsewhere, but does anyone know why "Dark Frontier" was feature length, but "Future's End" was a two-parter? AyalaofBorg 23:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and if anyone's going to revert my edit, please note the corrected spelling, separatly -> separately. Thank you. AyalaofBorg 00:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

My guess -- because Dark Frontier aired as a "2 hr" episode, whereas FE aired as two separate episodes, just back to back.
Oh, and the episodes listed on there were previously linked as they were titled in the main credits. Just as an aside. The old style also matched the general episode linking style much more closely. -- Sulfur 00:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Crap. I fixed that in the one fix, and then broke it in the second. My apologies. -- Sulfur 02:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Dominion Invasion Arc

The arc that ends with "Sacrifice of Angels" is defined in three different ways on MA:

- Story arcs suggests it begins with "In the Cards"

- the template states that it begins with "Call to Arms"

- notes on the first six episodes of DS9 Season 6 define the arc as beginning with "A Time to Stand"

It definitely needs to be standardised to avoid confusion. So which shall it be? - Cleanse 05:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not A Time to Stand. In the Cards vs. Call to Arms is the only tough decision, but I would say Call to Arms. --Bp 07:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Story arcs/Arcs synch

This is in some way a continuation of the above concern over synchronising how story arcs are defined. There are some Arcs that appear in the episode/film templates that don't appear here, and to be honest, it would be hard to fit them into the page here as it currently stands. Does the arc "Project Genesis" (films 2-4) go in 'Three-part episodes'? What about the "Worf's family" arc? This page is a little confusing, seeing as how it doesn't do what it first appears it should do: list the arcs defined elsewhere on MA. Any ideas on how to incorporate the somewhat more unusual arcs? Any other arcs that I've missed? --Jayunderscorezero 05:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at the episode Data's Day and say the reference "Arc: Android Rights (3 of 3)". So I went to this page (nice page too)... But "Aondroid Rights" are not here... So either it's an omission here or a mistake at that episode page...The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.228.198.219 (talk).
There is an obvious problem about the arcs. But about "Android Rights", didn't it exist an arrow pointing left just left of the "Android Rights"-text? If so, some people have listed that arc in the episode-articles, but not in this article. The arrow is a quicklink to the previous episode in the arc.
But the problem about Story Arcs is existing. What qualifies as a story arc, how will we list them. and at last, dp we have to list them here, and why? Who would have to do it? How to name the arc, there exists arcs in the episodepages with one name, and an arc containing the same episodes but with a different name, what is the correct naming?
atleast...that is what i think.-- Rom Ulan 21:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Flashback and ST6?

I might need some clarification as to the definition of a 'story arc' for purposes of this list, but I think it's a stretch to call this pairing a story arc. First, ST6 was not written with the intention to continue any plot aspects about Sulu beyond the movie. Second, Flashback only revisited the events of the film, it did not add to them, since it was a vision in Tuvok's mind. Anything that happened in his mind had nothing to do with the real life events of the film. A common theme, perhaps, but I don't think it's too much more than that. 31dot 20:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I would not say that it is a story arc. Flashback only tells a little more of what happened, but there is no plotline. ST6 showed the capture of kirk & McCoy. Flashback showed a little of the rescue attempt by the Excelsior. Nothing more to talk about. and in flashback the rescueattempt was not a big thing, it was just a small thing to add.
I now honestly can't say that I really wrote what I'm thinking so that everybody understand. But in short, I don't think that ST6 and Flashback really has a story-arc.-- Örlogskapten. Qapl'a! 20:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
To address the above concerns, "Trials and Tribble-ations", like "Flashback", "only revisited the events" of a previous episode/film and yet is included here as part of a story-arc. To include one and not the other seems odd. Also, to say that this doesn't count because the first part "was not written with the intention to continue any plot aspects" also seems strange when one considers that many arcs on this page started out with stand-alone episodes (e.g. "Space Seed"). Considering the precedents already established by this list, I fail to see why this arc would be disincluded. --Jayunderscorezero 02:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I would say that probably Trials and Tribble-ations shouldn't be here either, as much like Flashback and ST6 the newer episode only revisited the original, and was not a continuation. The same character or species should not make something a story arc by itself, as then any such episodes could be considered an arc(the Vulcan arc, the Borg arc, etc.) As for Space Seed and TWOK, the writers of TWOK intended to continue the story of Space Seed. The arc can be established with subsequent episodes. Again, I may be a bit unclear as to the definition we are working under, but simply seeing the same events again from a different perspective doesn't make an arc. 31dot 20:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC) (self-edited my comment for repetition) 31dot 20:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. But for making it easy, how about we create a page for episodes that show the same event from different places? like ST6 and Flashback. Trouble with Tribbles and Trials and Tribble-actions.
BUT! before anyone says anything. Trouble with tribbles and More Tribbles more Troubble is a story arc, about cyrano Jones.
but... then... how about the the ds9-tribble-episode and TOS-tribble-episode. they could be placed under a story arc regarding Arne Darvin, if that not is made already. The TOS is about how he failed because of Kirk, the DS9 is about how he tried to revenge on Kirk. far off...i know.-- Örlogskapten. Qapl'a! 21:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeesh, this is getting complicated. To me, a story arc is when plot elements from one episode continue into another episode. Watching "Flashback" makes one think back to the events of ST6. Similarly, once one has seen "Flashback", subsequent reviews of ST6 also bring to mind the events of "Flashback", as now one is aware of something added to the story. There is an arc of sorts there, I'm sure. As for "Flashback" supposedly only revisiting the original and not continuing it, "Flashback" actually does add a number of elements to the Sulu plot of ST6, such as the encounter with Kang, and therefore does, in a sense, continue it (and also, through Tuvok, it does in fact continue elements from ST6 into the 'present' (of 2373)). --Jayunderscorezero 21:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I can see your point somewhat, but I don't think the common plot elements are substantial enough to call it an arc. I think that the plot elements have to be the focus of the stories in the arc in order to be one. ST6 was not about Captain Sulu, it was about making peace with the Klingons; Sulu was involved and developed, but the plot was not about Sulu. Flashback was not about Sulu, it was about Tuvok's memory virus. The fact that he got it during his Excelsior mission with Sulu was happenstance, he was not the focus of the story.(We didn't even see Tuvok in ST6.) An arc, in my opinion, means that the plots of all the individual stories advance a larger plot. The Dominion War arc was about the War. The arc with Seska and the Kazon trying to take over Voyager was about Seska and the Kazon....you get the idea. While both stories involve Sulu, no larger plot is advanced. Execept for the characters, the only thing the stories have in common is that they look at the same event from a different persepective. As for the scene with Kang, it actually serves to expand Tuvok's story, not Sulu's. 31dot 22:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
True, but I believe that there are arcs and "sub-arcs", just as there are plots and sub-plots. A relatively minor element, carried through several otherwise unrelated episodes, and therefore increasing in importance, can still count as an arc of sorts. Still, I'm having to fight relatively hard to justify this one, so I guess not everyone sees eye to eye with me on this. Remove it from the list if you like. --Jayunderscorezero 22:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I can see what you mean by sub-arc. But i personally think about this page as a main-arc.
How about a little proposal to all of you! How about we create a sub-headline for , what Jay said, sub-arcs? another sub-arc could be about how Nog worked his way into the Academy?-- Örlogskapten. Qapl'a! 16:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, though I worry that it may complicate the page somewhat. Otherwise I'm behind the idea. --Jayunderscorezero 18:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Borg and first contact

I've added the episode TNG: "Q Who" to the story arc about the Borg and First Contact. The reason is because in ENT: "Regeneration", the Borg send a signal to the Delta Quadrant, telling the Borg about the existence of humans. When they recieve the signal, they send the Cube that is first seen in Q Who and later in TNG: "The Best of Both Worlds", "The Best of Both Worlds, Part II". therefore the actions taken in Star Trek: First Contact and Regeneration is directly related to the borg sending the cube and their first / second attempt to assimilate Earth. --myÖrlogstalkkaptenpage 15:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not entirely accurate. Remember that we know from dialog in "Q Who" that the Borg had already entered Federation/Romulan space as early as "The Neutral Zone". The events of "Regeneration" create a predestination paradax that explain why the Borg would even have made the trip. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well... but still, the episodes and movie are related. The events of "Regeneration" caused the events shown in "the neutral zone" and primary "Q Who" and "Best of Both Worlds, part I+II"--myÖrlogstalkkaptenpage 23:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Q Episodes??

Should ALL the Q episodes be considered an arc? For example, you have Q getting kicked out of the continuum, etc, then you have the Voyager Q eps (which are listed as their own arc on this page) but there could be a Q-Picard arc ... however I think all the Q eps are really an arc ... just wondering??  :) --Tvral 04:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Recurring characters do not an arc make. :) -- Sulfur 15:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Then why do we have it in our sidebars (see "Q Who")? No need to answer, I already know. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
What's the difference between a recurring character and an arc? I see nothing different between Sela, Q and Duras. Nothing at all. Carry on. --24.87.13.9 07:21, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
I concur.--Brumagnus 07:23, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I'd say the difference is whether the character just reappears, or plot threads additionally do. For example, events of "Death Wish" lead to the Q Civil War in "The Q and the Grey". That's more than just a reappearance of the familiar Q character. --Defiant 09:37, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Section 31

I added a Section 31 story arch but half of it was just cut out. I can live with the "Enteprise Incident" and ST:VI, but "These are the Voyages..." clearly implies Section 31 involvement. Also, the reverting of my changes messed up the links in all of the other episodes that remained. As I spent the better half of the morning finding and linking the episodes, if someone wants to remove them, I think it is only fair that they fix the remaining links so they are not out of order. And then of course I feel that "These are the Voyages" shouldn't have been removed in the first place. Comments? -FleetCaptain 17:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

first, i moved this to the talk-page because this is the place for your discussion.
second, a comment on "These are the Voyages". that episode takes place during the events of TNG: "The Pegasus". Pegasus is more a section 31 episode than this one. It is not stated anything about S31 in The Pegasus. In These are the voyages, it is nothing about Section 31. it is about the final voyage of NX-01, Birth of the Federation, and Will's decision to tell picard about something or not. --Rom UlanHail 18:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The talk page statement on the article page was a problem with my browser, thanks for moving it. "These are the Voyages..." references "a secret section of Starfleet Security" that is behind the cloaking device. I've seen it in a bunch of places that this was indicating Section 31. -FleetCaptain 18:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

We get a lot of these strange "arcs" lately... Two things in this case - first, if there's just a reference to some section of Starfleet security, this does not necessarily mean Section 31 - especially not when considering exactly how secret that organization still was years later. Let's see some behind-the-scenes information about that before we start speculating. Second, not everything that uses the same plot elements is an "arc". So what, if Section 31 was involved in three different plots spanning three centuries - is that an arc? I don't think so. -- Cid Highwind 21:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Good thinking Cid about that pna. We really should fix the Section 31-section. I really only thinks about those DS9-episodes as Section 31. I could stretchen out to include The Pegasus. But not "These are the voyages", that episode is more about will's decision to tell Cpt Picard, than the secret branch of starfleet. and for the rest of ENT, that is not Section 31.( they are an unnanmned secret branch of starfleet security, not section 31. Section 31 would not have let Reed of the hook.) They may be a predecessor, but not IT. And further more, those are not even an arc, or something that could qualifye as equal. it is just an organisation mentioned on-screen. serving of a plot-device in Demons and Terra Prime. In the two other ENT-episodes, they are more, but not enough.--Rom UlanHail 22:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the reference in "Enterprise" to Section 31 is extremely clear; as when Archer locates the primary "spymaster" he is told that the organization is based on "Section 31" of the Starfleet charter. Thus, what we see in Enterprise is very clearly part of the 31 backstory. Pegasus, having been written before 31 was introduced on DS9 is a bit harder to pin down and might be considered conjecture. But then, "These are the Voyages" references this special section of Starfleet Security and background info put out at the time of tis broadcast indicated this was Section 31. I will try and find out exactly where we can get a reference for that. As it stands right now, I like the layout in this article as it seems to cover everything being discussed. -FleetCaptain 23:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. Why not, under the heading Section 31 on this page, list two arcs: "Section 31 in the 22nd Century" and "Section 31 in the 24th Century". Because I think they are distinct plot-wise. Then, on the ep pages, list the relevant arc, but also a template: "Section 31 Related Eps", which would be like this one:
Cleanse 23:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I support Cleanse's proposal. And i would like if FleetCaptain could get a reference. Besides that, are there really enough to make Section 31 an arc? I mean, just as an organisation they don't deserve an entire arc for themselves.--Rom UlanHail 00:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I still don't really see the "arc" here. Even assuming that it definitely was Section 31 in all those episodes, the events are still completely unrelated. Some S31 operative hands out information in one episode. Another operative(?) tests a cloaking device in another. Somehow, the organization is involved in an assassination plot 100 years before/after the first two events mentioned. Oh, yes, and they created the nasty founder plague, too... :)
This is no more an arc than the "Q arc" discussed and shot down in the section above. Not every episode that makes use of the same story element (character, organization) is part of an "arc". -- Cid Highwind 09:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Now, when i think it's obvious that it does not fit into this page, can we delete the section Section 31? We don't have all the Q ep listed becuase that is not an arc by itself.Why should we have Section 31 here then?--Rom UlanHail 20:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Section 31 is very obviously an arc, especially in the DSN version where the relationship between Bashir and Sloan is flushed out over three episodes and then Bashir turns against Sloan in the last episode. 31's origins are thus explored in Enterprise against the backdrop of the Klingon augment arc. This is indeed an arc and I am totally against simply blanking it. I do however like the idea of separating it into two separate arcs; but blanking it, no. -FleetCaptain 21:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Now you are talking in a way that sounds better (no offense). I am against putting the entire Section31-episodes as one arc, just as Q is not an arc by him(?)self. But making it into an arc, like the VOY-Q-episodes. they are about the new way of the continoum and the events following. If you can make SEction 31 into arcs that is not only that SEction 31 appears/mentioned.--Rom UlanHail 21:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Just took a look on the article-page. looks good!:-)-- Rom Ulan 22:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I created the template I suggested above:
Now the eps allow for easy navigation between themselves, without stating its actually an arc. We can now change the arcs on the ep pages to the 22nd and 24th century arcs accordingly. – Cleanse 00:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Less Specific Arcs

On the episode page for "Whispers" lists it as being part one of the "O'Brien Must Suffer" Arc, surely this page should collect together these various less obvious arcs. Igotbit 20:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Or something needs to be removed from the various episode pages... "O'Brien must suffer" surely isn't any kind of arc. -- Cid Highwind 20:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. The arc function seems to have devolved into a "theme function". --OuroborosCobra talk 20:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I am thinking about a major cleanup on this page, but it will take time. and, we need to establish EXACTCLY what a Story Arc is and is not.-- Rom Ulan 21:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Arc-bot

Somewhere i've found a page where we should list the story-arcs in a bot-friendly way. Because we have a bot that will edit all pages and only list the story-arcs and episodes listed on that page.
First, what page am I talking about?
Second, when does that bot do it? I am remembering right, there was edits there that was not in the pages (and other way around) that had been there for a long time.
-- Rom Ulan 21:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but it just overwrites the data that is in all the sidebars with data from that project, so all the manually added arcs will be wiped out if the bot runs. I'll run it if no one cares about losing those. The dude who added so many of them never responded to his talk page, so... --Bp 22:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh please, for the love of the Prophets, in the name of Kahless, run that bot. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, we've had some absolutely ridiculous arcs added to episodes. – Cleanse 23:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well Bp. To quote a famous bald and bold captain: "Make it so". Please use the bot, and then send a reply here, so we know that it has been used again. It shall be glorious! ;-) -- Rom Ulan 00:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind a bot run to remove some of the more ridiculous arcs added in the past weeks - but please, let us at least get some consistency between Story arcs (which readers will rightfully see as the definitive story arcs page) and the internal MA page that the bot uses as a resource, first! I already corrected some cases where the listings on both pages differ, but a second (or third) pair of eyes couldn't hurt... -- Cid Highwind 12:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Cid, I have looked through both pages, and i think they now display the same information, just in a bot-friendly way and a user-friendly way.-- Rom Ulan 14:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Bp, Cid, all you other people, many days have walked past us. There has not been any edit to neither this page or that page. How about that Bot now? And, please, could you leave a message here after that? because I don't get Bot-edits-notifications on email and I really would like to know when it is done. :-P -- Rom Ulan 21:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It's runnung. Also updating the TOS-R airdates that Tim Thomason added to the source pages so long ago. The thing hasn't run in a year, so there might be issues. Go to #memory-alpha if you see a problem, and tell me about it. --Bp 00:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Bp 02:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Multi-Episode Arcs vs. Non-Consecutive Arcs

What separates these two kinds of arcs, exactly? I'm trying to pin down where to put Seska's story arc, which doesn't appear to be on here for some reason. (That, and why "Shattered" doesn't seem to be a part of it, but I imagine that's a different issue.) Caswin 04:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Consecutive arcs are those which literally happened consecutively (one immediately after) to each other, such as "The Best of Both Worlds" and "The Best of Both Worlds, Part II". Non-consecutive arcs did not, and were separated by more than one episode, an example being "Reunion" and "Redemption", which were separated by almost an entire season. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
He means: what's the difference between "Multi-episode arcs and non-consecutive arcs" on this page.
They appear to be the same thing (arcs that are non-consecutive episodes), so I'd support merging the former into the latter. Either that, or clarify the difference on the page.– Cleanse talk 05:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Worf's family arc

I first noticed this on the "You Are Cordially Invited" page. My question is, is this really a "story arc"? It's not listed on the Story arcs page, and the only common element is that they involve a member of Worf's family. If that is considered enough of a connection to be an arc, I wonder what sort of precedent that would set. Would every episode with Ishka and/or Rom in it be an arc called "Quark's family"?--31dot 22:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The arcs are supposed to follow some continuity. These are getting a little loose, I agree. --Bp 23:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I can remove it, unless someone wishes to object.--31dot 19:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Support. The entire show is one huge arc :) — Morder 19:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

With a second, I removed it. I found some other arcs that I found somewhat questionable, but I only removed this one.--31dot 13:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI It is still listed on the story arcs page. -- TrekFan Talk 13:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, just got it.--31dot 02:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

sidebar sync

Gonna sync the sidebars soon, but I'm not sure the arc data is ready, things have gotten a little loose and I might skip that. Also the sidebar probably needs to have more "slots" addded. Any thoughts? Has it really been more than a year? Damn. --bp 18:11, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

If it's been more than a year, I'd appreciate if this "syncing" wasn't one-way, potentially overwriting any changes to the episode pages during the last year by simply pushing the project content to the pages. Other than that, I'm not sure of any necessary changes. -- Cid Highwind 18:21, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. --bp 18:35, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

I know this is a bit old, but could the bot just report the differences between the episode pages and the project page? - Archduk3 19:15, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Khan and Augments Arc

Shouldn't it also include "Doctor Bashir, I Presume?" "Statistical Probabilities," and "Chrysalis"? 68.39.202.90 01:47, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Not all genetically engineered people are augments. See Talk:Augment.--31dot 02:12, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Maquis introduction

I think this episode (TNG: "Journey's End") should be included as part of the "Maquis introduction" arc (for a total of three episodes). There are many things in the DS9 two-parter that are a direct follow-up to this episode, including the signing of the Federation-Cardassian treaty and the colony that decides to stay on the Cardassian side of the border. There are also two recurring characters that appear in both "Journey's End" and "The Maquis" (Admiral Nechayev and Gul Evek). I have no idea how to do that, though. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.130.210.155 (talk).

Has there been a Maquis arc really? I guess technically yes but the DS9 writers just sort of mentioned on the side that they were all killed by the way. Check. Move on. I dont know if this pathetic handling of the Maquis makes them have a "story arc" at all. I dunno. Doesnt matter to me either way. – Distantlycharmed 00:56, November 22, 2010 (UTC)
DC, I don't see how any of your points or personal complaints (which you've been asked to leave off of talk pages a number of times before) make this not a story arc. I may not like the Kazon, but they had a story arc. So did the Maquis. As for this episode, I don't feel it really counts as part of it. Its setting was the same place, and it laid some of the background to the situation that created the Maquis, but the Maquis themselves are NOT present. We could have almost any of the earlier Cardassian episodes having almost as much connection as this episode. Evek and Nechayev being involved isn't really a connection either, they were both responsible for things on this border. To say this is part of the Maquis arc is like saying the Treaty of Versailles was part of World War II. After all, Philippe Pétain was a World War I general, present at the singing of the Treaty, and leader of Vichy France. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:21, November 22, 2010 (UTC)
Not necessarily the best example there OC, as there are direct connections between the wars, and the treaty was at the heart of a lot of those. As for the actual "arc" in question, that discussion should take place at Talk:Story arcs instead of on one episodes talk page. - Archduk3 01:39, November 22, 2010 (UTC)
People treat the Treaty of Versailles as contributing to why the Second World War started, they don't say that World War II started in 1919. As it was, the changes to "Journey's End" had designated it as "introducing the Maquis," baloney since the Maquis flat out were not in the episode. They were not introduced until "The Maquis". --OuroborosCobra talk 01:50, November 22, 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. The Maquis did not appear in "Journey's End" but that episode set up their creation, they would not exist were it not for the events of "Journey's End". This is not a debate about the quality of the episode, it's a debate about the historical importance of what occurs in the episode. "In the Cards" is still included as part of the "Dominion invasion" arc even though the Dominion do not invade until the next episode (in fact, the only arc significance of "In the Cards" is that the Dominion offer Bajor a NON-AGREESION pact.) The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.208.113.103 (talk).
But this episode just represents the historical context out of which the Maquis were ultimately born. The Maquis didnt come into existence because of Native Americans on Dorvan V being displaced, they came into existence because people opposed the turning over of their colonies, Native Americans and Bajorans alike (and who knows what other races). For many it was about opposing the whole principle of sacrificing dozens of worlds for the greater good of the Federation. The Maquis are not mentioned or eluded to in this episode in any shape or form. I understand what you are saying but if you want to backtrack like that, you might as well name "The Wounded" as the episode introducing the Maquis because that is where all the seeds of resistance were planted. "Preemptive Strike" has to be the intro to The Maquis, where they are actually mentioned and where a concrete group has already formed to resist the the Treaty. – Distantlycharmed 19:27, November 22, 2010 (UTC)
I'd support including the TNG: "Journey's End" in a "Maquis Introduction" story arc organization. The writers/producers of that episode themselves have gone on record saying that this episode was intended to plant the seeds for the Maquis anyways, so although this isn't the actual "birth" of the organization, it does definitely contribute to it, therefore making it relevant to the story arc. Nero210 20:08, November 22, 2010 (UTC)
After thinking this over some more, I would tend to agree that this could be included in some sort of Maquis arc, as this episode does set the stage for the introduction of the Maquis proper shortly after.
Re:OC - The histories I've read flat out state that the Treaty of Versailles laid all the groundwork for the Nazis rise to power. Literally almost everything that was wrong with Germany post WWI was tied one way or another to it, and Hitler even forced France to surrender in the same boxcar that Germany did because of it. Just because there weren't Nazis and battles happening in 1919 doesn't mean that the world wasn't already marching towards another world war. - Archduk3 05:48, November 23, 2010 (UTC)
I think "Journey's End" should be included in the arc. As noted on the ep page, it was specifically intended to set up the Maquis for the benefit of Voyager. DS9 was then used to introduce the actual Maquis. In other words, the TNG episode plus the DS9 two-parter were intentionally linked. Aside from the AOL chat there, this is also noted in the Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion (2nd ed., p. 290).– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 08:30, November 23, 2010 (UTC)
The Versailles example is a good one for not taking this "story arc" business too far. Yes, historians state that that treaty more or less directly led to Hitler - but look at what they are doing before stating such. They are looking at what they know about history, interpret those facts and anecdotes, and then derive at an assumption about what really happened. This is fine in real life, but we would call it "original research" if done here. Now, as Cleanse brought up, there seem to be references for some "producers intent" to really make this one a story arc, so no problem here. We should pay attention to not assume too much in other cases, though. -- Cid Highwind 10:27, November 23, 2010 (UTC)
Oh well then, if it was intended by the writers then include it. Also include "Preemptive Strike" as part of the Maquis arc instead of jumping straight to "The Maquis, Part I". – Distantlycharmed 18:00, November 23, 2010 (UTC)
Actually DC, if you look at each episode's air dates you'll see that DS9: "The Maquis, Part I" aired BEFORE TNG: "Preemptive Strike", and the former takes place before the latter chronologically as well, so the order you're suggesting wouldn't be appropriate (It should be "Journey's End," "The Maquis I/II," "Preemptive Strike,"...) --Nero210 05:56, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, but "Preemptive Strike" is currently not included in the Maquis arc and it should be. – Distantlycharmed 23:03, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, no it shouldn't. First off, the Maquis weren't being introduced in "Preemptive Strike," they were already established. Second off, this arc isn't "introduction of the Maquis. This seems to be something that's been lost in all of this. The anon renamed it "introduction of the Maquis," but the arc itself was originally just called "The Maquis." Why? Because the original purpose of this arc is just to be an arc for the two part episode. It isn't some sort of theme based arc or anything like that. Just like "Descent" is in the arc "Descent," because it is just an arc to facilitate navigating the two part episode. It isn't in an arc with "I Borg", even though that earlier episode laid the foundation for Lore's creation of the rogue Borg. It isn't in the arc because the arc existed just to link the two part episode. This arc is meant the same, to link this two part episode. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:03, November 25, 2010 (UTC)
Shouldnt "Preemptive Strike" be mentioned as being linked to the entire Maquis arc? Whether it is called introduction or whatever you wanna call it? – Distantlycharmed 01:13, November 25, 2010 (UTC)
No, it is not part of a multi-part episode. It isn't even part of the same series. This particular arc was never meant to encompass everything containing the Maquis, it was meant to encompass the two parts of a two part episode. We don't have an arc for every Borg episode either. Now, if we want to talk about creating a separate, new story arc, maybe, but that needs to have its own discussion. This story arc was created just for the purpose of this two part episode. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:17, November 25, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I dont think so. You dont have to be part of the same series to establish continuity or be part of the same arc and second the events in "Preemptive Strike" are part of the entire Maquis arc and set up itself, continued in VOY and DS9. As the background section notes: The appearance of Nechayev and Evek [in "Preemptive Strike"] was intended to add continuity to the developing Maquis arc. Likewise, the use of Klingons, Vulcans, and Native Americans as village extras was a subtle setup for the cast of Star Trek: Voyager. (Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion)Distantlycharmed 01:46, November 25, 2010 (UTC)
Are you reading what I am writing? The arc here isn't a theme, it is connecting a two part episode. That's it. You want to make a new arc? Fine, go right ahead, but this one is for a two part episode. That's it. It isn't about general continuity. It isn't about Voyager (notice that no Voyager episodes are in this arc either, it's got nothing to do with it). This particular use of the template, THIS use, was to connect a two part episode. Just like the one in Descent and any other two part episode. I really don't know how to word that any more clear. "Preemptive Strike" is not part of a two part episode, and not a third part to this one. If you want to make a new story arc including these episodes and that one based on a theme, start a new discussion about it. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:01, November 25, 2010 (UTC)
Ok I see what you are saying but fact remains that the reference above is valid and that obviously the producers intended this to be part of the Maquis arc in one way or another. Right now there is nothing there under the episode box. If these three episodes are an intro, then what is "Preemptive Strike"? Also, why are "For the Cause", "For the Uniform" and "Blaze of Glory" marked as the "Sisko vs Eddington" arc? Shouldnt that be the Maquis arc? – Distantlycharmed 02:55, November 25, 2010 (UTC)
The story arc "links" seem to be used inconsistently from one another. Look at the Mirror Universe eps. Except for maybe Crossover/Looking-Glass/Shattered Mirror, none of them are part of an 'arc'. They are just stand-alone episodes set in the same parallel universe. That being said, I don't have an objection to linking all the MU episodes together if it helps people less familiar with the franchise easily locate all the MU eps. So in that same vein, we could link "Journey's End" to "The Maquis, Part I" so that new fans who want to understand everything that is going on can know that it's a good idea to watch "Journey's End" before watching "The Maquis, Part I". In that same vein, you could probably also link "I Borg" to "Descent". Whether or not this meets your personal definition of what a Story Arc is is beside the point. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.96.146.103 (talk).

The Gift?

If TNG: "Family" is considered a third part of a "Best of Both Worlds"/"Family" trilogy (comprised of "The Best of Both Worlds", "The Best of Both Worlds, Part II" and "Family"), wouldn't it be fair to say that VOY: "The Gift" serves as the third part of a "Scorpion"/"Gift" three-parter (comprised of "Scorpion", "Scorpion, Part II" and "The Gift")? --Defiant 15:43, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and no one else argued with you in 6 months, so I went ahead and made the change. —Commodore Sixty-Four(TALK) 06:48, July 11, 2011 (UTC)

ENT Expansion

I've added a couple of story arcs to Enterprise's section relating to the conflicts between Vulcan and Andoria and I've also added the episodes depicting Enterprise's journey to Risa. --24.251.141.194 04:21, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the "Journey to Risa arc" being here. Just because they tried to go to Risa for a couple of episodes(and got there in the third) doesn't mean it was an arc. Aside from that plot element, the three episodes have little in common. 31dot 09:07, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki