Wikia

Memory Alpha

Talk:Visionary (episode)

37,507pages on
this wiki

Back to page

FA Nomination (February, 2011 - Retracted) Edit

Self-nomination: I spent several hours working on this episode article, writing the summary, quotes and adding images. Also, Cleanse has added some very nice background information so thanks to him for that. I did put this through a peer review, but as with many peer reviews, it went unnoticed. I took this as a sign it was ready for nomination and I personaly think it is as complete as it can get. --| TrekFan Open a channel 23:13, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Part of the reason it went untouched was because two other Peer reviews were still going, and one was being ignored, despite the comments. -- sulfur 02:13, February 19, 2011 (UTC)
Anyone else willing to commit their vote to this? --| TrekFan Open a channel 01:04, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
Anyone...? :( --| TrekFan Open a channel 22:53, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: it's mediocre at best, and I definitely wouldn't say it's especially "well written." Also, I know for a fact that it's not as comprehensive as it could be. --Defiant 02:02, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
Comprehensive in what way, Defiant? I was watching the episode as I wrote the summary so I haven't missed anything there and the background info is all that is in the Companion and the Captains Logs books, and there's a decent amount of it. --| TrekFan Open a channel 02:08, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
You might wanna read the FA criteria page, to see what I'm talking about! I know for a fact that the bg info section isn't anywhere as near complete as it could be. Also, I find the summary section to be very confusing and poorly written. --Defiant 02:17, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
Can I ask how you know "for a fact?" Do you know of some more info that could be added to it? If that's the case would you be willing to make those additions? As for the summary, the episode itself has a potentially confusing plot so keeping the summary understandable isn't easy, though I did believe I had managed to do it, that is until you mentioned otherwise. --| TrekFan Open a channel 02:27, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
Comment. I'm not sure what exactly is missing from the Background section, but if there is something missing it shouldn't be considered complete. If Defiant could elaborate, that would be helpful. I'm also wondering if the summary is as concise as possible.--31dot 02:48, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
I'm aware of lots of info that the article is missing. I wouldn't be keen on adding it, though, for 2 main reasons: 1. I'm not a big fan of DS9 personally (like the article, I find it a bit too confusing!), and 2. adding all the info there is would change this, once again, from being an FA nomination to something more akin to a peer review! --Defiant 02:56, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
If what you say is true (there is more BG info to add), then adding it to the article wouldn't change your vote anyway (due to the summary) and the article would fail, so what's the trouble in adding it? If you could at least tell me the source you are using for this BG info, I could look it up myself? Furthermore, your "not being a fan of DS9" should not affect your addition to the article or your voting. --| TrekFan Open a channel 02:59, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
The argument that something is missing would have more punch if you could describe even one thing that is missing. You don't have to add it- but it would be nice to know even one example.--31dot 04:07, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
That's all I want to know. You say it's incomplete but don't provide any examples. --| TrekFan Open a channel 06:24, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
I was busy sleeping! There's its rating here that technically could be added – it's rated 8th in the season. The episode has an easily-available script (like all TNG and DS9 installments do), so info from that could be added. Also, its Nielsen rating. There's info about the episode in one of the Cinefantastiques – I've looked, though been having a hard time trying to find somewhere to put the info, as the bg info section has so few subsections. In addition, there's bound to be info about the episode in Star Trek Monthly and The Official Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Magazine, both of them being official publications. As I said, it's incomplete. --Defiant 10:27, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't rushing for you to respond, I was just replying. With regards to your comments, which for the most part are perfectly valid, I do not have access to any issues of Cinefantastique but the internet information is great. I do see a problem with you saying there's "bound" to be information in Star Trek Monthly but I do not believe there has been an issue dealing with this particular episode. If you know otherwise, please do point me in the right direction. All I want to do is improve the article further, and if there is information missing, then I want to help complete it. It is my intention to withdraw this from nomination so that work can be done, unless anyone has any objections. However, I will leave it for another day for comments before doing so. Defiant, if you do have access to that Cinefantastique information and you would be willing to add it, it would be very kind of you to do so. Furthermore, if you could provide some examples of what confuses you in the summary, I will endeavour to correct that aswell. Finally, and please do not take this as a "dig" or an insult, but whether you see it or not, writing this summary, choosing images and adding background information did take a lot of time and effort on my part so it is quite disheartening when you call it "mediocre". Though I am certain you didn't mean any insult by it, perhaps more constructive terminology would be better in the future? Again, please do not take this the wrong way. I just feel like I put a lot of effort into it and, while there may or may not be things missing, all I want to do is make it the best it can be. I will glady accept points for improvement in the future. Thank you. :) --| TrekFan Open a channel 18:06, March 1, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support There seems to be a good amount of background info nicely delineated.Derekbd 20:23, March 1, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, you were right, TrekFan – I didn't mean any insult by the "mediocre" comment, so I'm sorry that you took it harshly. I'd be willing to help you out, as you work on the article a bit more. I'll have a look for that Cinefantastique info, for example. --Defiant 22:25, March 1, 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Defiant. I appreciate that. I'll leave this up until tomorrow, when I'll begin working on the article. --| TrekFan Open a channel 04:51, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
Note: The policy on voting for FA nominations states that one must be a user for two weeks in order to vote- Derek has only been since February 26th.--31dot 01:07, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Archived. - Archduk3 02:52, March 3, 2011 (UTC)

Episode talk page Edit

At the end of the episode, O'Brien predicts that Bashir will hit "20, outer ring" at darts with foreknowledge from the future. However, we know from "Doctor Bashir, I Presume" that the genetically engineered Dr. Bashir was always intentionally throwing the dart games to O'Brien to conceal his genetic advantage. So doesn't that mean that Bashir was then aiming specifically at 20, outer ring, making O'Brien's prediction a self-fulfilling prophecy?

In this episode, when darts are first being introduced to Quark's, and apparently to Bashir too, Bashir is not throwing the games - he won ten in a row. Maybe later he started fooling OBrien. SwishyGarak 18:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
In this episode, Bashir closes his eyes before he throws the "20, outer ring" shot, so it's completely "random" chance. Izkata 19:49, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Romulan singularitiesEdit

Throughout this episode, when the character were wondering "What could be the source of this mysterious invisible singularity?", I kept saying "Cloaked Romulan warbird!" Wouldn't they (or at least O'Brien) already know about Romulans using artificial singularities to power their ships? And if so, why would they not immediately suspect the visiting Romulans? Gonk (Gonk!) 15:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree; but this wiki doesn't have a section for questions about the episode, like others. MaGnUs 08:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

JulianEdit

I'll let someone with an account and an editing history confirm and post this, but I believe that this is the first episode since "The Storyteller" that O'Brien has referred to Bashir as Julian. 24.218.218.197 02:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed Background InfoEdit

I've removed an item in the Background that has been waiting for a citation for at least 6 months as far as I can tell. I'm placing it here.

  • In the original story for this episode, it was not going to be O'Brien getting shifted in time, it was going to be Odo. DhaliaUnsung 20:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed this, since it seems more like a coincidence than anything else. Also, completely slighting Naomi Wildman.

  • This episode shares some commonalities with the Star Trek: Voyager episode "Deadlock". Both show the destruction of the station/starship and both Miles O'Brien and Harry Kim die and are replaced by alternative versions of themselves. "Deadlock" was written by Brannon Braga a year after "Visionary."

- Archduk3:talk 10:34, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

An interview with the story writer confirms it originally focused on Odo, and that it was his first pitch session, "Children of Time" being after several more unsuccessful pitch sessions (another incite request in Background). But it's more a personal site. Is it sufficient as a source? http://www.trekgirl.freeuk.com/authors/ethan-h-calk.htm Setacourse 20:47, December 10, 2009 (UTC)
My inkling is to say that's OK, as long as the link is provided in the article.--31dot 21:08, December 10, 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, 31dot. I found the writer's official site on archive.org, and an article he wrote describing his experience pitching Visionary confirms the Odo fact but not the other, so I'll use both sources. By the way, fun reads: [X]wbm His visit to the DS9 set during Children of Timewbm Setacourse 21:17, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

I removed "O'Brien falls unconscious when he returns from his first four jumps, but not from his final two jumps." He collapses because he's suffering pain from radiation poisoning. The first time he doesn't is because nearly all the radiation is out of his system. On Past O'Brien's last jump he does collapse from pain but gets back up because he knows he has to find out the cause of DS9's destruction. On Future O'Brien's jump to replace Past O'Brien, there's only a small amount of radiation in his tissues, so no collapse. Setacourse 05:10, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

Disagree about quote removal Edit

Morder removed this because it's a scene.

"You need to run a basilar arterial scan."
"Why?"
"Because if you don't, I'm gonna die in less than five hours."
"Who told you that?"
"You did! In the future!"
"Oh. Well, who am I to argue with me?"

- O'Brien and Bashir

I disagree that these 6 lines are too much. I'm aware of MA:QUOTE, and it *is* most of a scene, but a short scene. I think it's an important quote within the episode which gives an expanded feel of the temporal mechanics one.

I won't fight like a banshee for it, but *shrug* I disagree and would like it back if there's support for it. Setacourse 23:41, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

I returned the last three lines, since that was the memorable bit.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 01:54, February 8, 2011 (UTC)

Temporal Issues Edit

I have a qusetion about temporal theory in this episode. O'Brien changed the future by preventing the destruction of DS9. It makes no sense that he remembered the game with Julian or the Dabo. ThetaOrion 05:02, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it seems that the game happened before the events would have begun to take place leading to the destruction of the station. As such, he was still proceeding in a part of the future that wasn't affected much by his change in the timeline. It is a wee bit of a long shot for it to proceed exactly as before, but, as somebody once said (I think it was Tuvok), temporal paradoxes are usually implausible, but not impossible. -Mdettweiler 21:29, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

Expanded Edit

I have expanded the article summary considerably though the background information could have a little more. If anyone has any citable bg info please do add it! -- TrekFan Open a channel 01:03, February 8, 2011 (UTC)

Since you asked so nicely, and since this is one of my favourite episodes, there you go. ;-)–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 01:46, February 8, 2011 (UTC)

Nice one, Cleanse! I complately forgot that I actually have Captains' Logs Supplemental - The Unauthorized Guide to the New Trek Voyages too! Durr! I'm stupid at times :P -- TrekFan Open a channel 10:28, February 8, 2011 (UTC)

Peer review Edit

I'm requesting Peer Review on this article because I have spent a considerable amount of time going through the episode in question and writing up the complete summary in the Act format. Also, Cleanse was kind enough to add some bg info from the Captains' Logs Supplemental - The Unauthorized Guide to the New Trek Voyages book. Furthermore, having read through the article myself, I believe I have found any glaring spelling or grammar issues, but I could always use another set of eyes! Please comment, and thanks in advance. -- TrekFan Open a channel 13:40, February 10, 2011 (UTC)

Performer info Edit

There seems to be disagreement about the presence of information about future Trek work of the guest cast of this episode. I think including this information sets a poor precedent in loading down the episode pages with information that should be on the performer's pages. We want people to read these articles, not have all the information in one place.--31dot 01:42, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Episode pages are inevitably going to contain brief pieces of info that are available on other pages; that's just the way it is, so why should guest cast info be any different? Furthermore, I've written loads of Star Trek: Voyager episode articles with very similarly formatted guest cast info, yet no-one's ever objected to it up 'til now. I even submitted "The 37's" for FA nomination, which contains similar examples (see here), yet no-one said a word about it even then! As sulfur has admitted, nothing is said about it in the policies & guidelines, yet there is evidence to suggest that omitting the info would be against the Ps & Gs, as one criteria of FA status is that a given article be "complete as far as possible, but without adding any unnecessary rambling." Sulfur has already agreed that this example is not useless info (therefore, not "unnecessary rambling"), so I don't see what the problem is. --Defiant 02:01, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

If he has changed his mind, I will drop it, but I took his response to you as sarcasm since he led off by saying "if someone wants to know what else that person has been in, they can damned well just click on the person's name." Episode articles should be complete- with information about the particular episode. It's my opinion that other work of the guest cast is not relevant to one episode- it's relevant to the performer. Where would it stop? Listing all the directing work the director of the episode did? The sound guys? As I said, though, I will drop it if there is no other support.--31dot 02:10, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's the same system that tv.com uses. Do we really wanna be undermined by that site? --Defiant 02:13, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

That's a different animal, from what I've seen. :) --31dot 02:18, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Sulfur said the information wasn't useless, but very clearly said that the information belonged on the performers pages. Saying "it isn't useless" doesn't change that. If it were useless information, it would not belong anywhere on Memory Alpha, including the performer pages. Why you have decided to ignore the body of sulfur's response to you and his talking about putting the information on performer pages is beyond me. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:22, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
As I've attempted to explain above, saying "it isn't useless" means it's not "unnecessary rambling." The FA criteria page does not state any other grounds for omitting the info. On the contrary, it firmly states that a given article be "complete as far as possible." Not only is such an omission of useful information therefore against common sense, it's also breaching one of our policies. --Defiant 02:51, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with your interpretation. "Unnecessary rambling" is a relative term. Discussing the details of the M-5 multitronic unit would be unnecessary rambling in this article, even if the information is not considered useless and indeed is desired on the proper article. I for one find the information on performances entirely unrelated to this episode to be "unnecessary rambling" when stated on this article. It isn't when placed on the right article, but it is here.
Personally, I don't see any harm in including the information on the episode page. Sure, someone can click on the actor's name but highlighting the fact in the episode article might make the reader aware to further performances that perhaps they didn't know about before. For example, in "The Emissary" J.G. Hertzler appears as a Vulcan captain. The reader may not bother to click on the actor's name because for all they know it's just another guest actor. By highlighting the fact he went on to play other characters in DS9, they might think "Oh yeah, I didn't know that!" and click on his page to then learn more information. I don't see that this type of information harms a page. It's just more background info and should be included. --| TrekFan Open a channel 04:47, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
On another note, you could also argue that the "xxx did not appear in this episode" is irrelevant aswell since the user can just look on the main character non-appearances page for that information. On an encyclopaedia such as this there is bound to be some crossover as we build the web, it's just a matter of limiting it so that it's not a carbon copy on another page. I don't think such a small note on an actor is such an issue. --| TrekFan Open a channel 05:01, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
That reason, not knowing everything about the subject, is exactly why we make wikilanks and use a wiki system. You read an article, and it brings you to other articles to learn about their subjects, and so on. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:33, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's just my opinion on the matter. --| TrekFan Open a channel 07:42, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
Let's take a look at just how stupid the suggestion is that this info not be included. The 1st and 3rd examples of bg notes in this article state the following:
"Freelancer Ethan H. Calk sold this story on his very first pitch session to Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. He pitched numerous other ideas before finally landing his second sale – contributing to the story for the episode "Children of Time"."
"Chalk had also used Nausicaans as villains, but these were rejected as not familiar enough. In response, he created the Romulan-Klingon intrigue plot."
For starters, the note about Calk's work on the series is written in the same format as the guest cast info, giving brief info about his other work on the series, yet – for some reason – it's seen as acceptable, has had no-one moaning about it (yet) and certainly hasn't been removed. One could argue, in the same way that some have argued for the senseless exclusion of guest cast info, that the third note be removed because it has info about the Nausicaans that could instead be found on their own page. However, this hasn't happened either, and no-one's raised a stink about it! These are just two examples of the wealth of info that could be seen as removable, if we were to accept the ridiculous tripe that the cast info be omitted. --Defiant 09:44, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Noting that it was the writer's first sale is relevant to the development of this episode- but the information after that part isn't. The Nausicaan information is also relevant to this episode(noting how the writer developed the episode) It is not relevant to this episode that Shearer later played an unrelated, different role. --31dot 09:51, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Well, myself, TrekFan, and the users of tv.com disagree with you. You're yet to give any decently sensible arguments for the exclusion of the info, rather than just moaning your opinion on the matter. --Defiant 09:58, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

I object to your tone, sir. I am not "moaning" any more than you are. You also have not responded to my last argument. It's not "sensible" to avoid loading down pages with unrelated content, when we have a system designed to avoid doing so? I'm also not sure why you keep bringing up "TV.com". This is not TV.com, this is a wiki.--31dot 10:00, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

[EDIT CONFLICT] With regards to the Calk note, it is entirely relevant to mention his other episode if he only contributed two stories to the DS9 series. How can you mentioned one without the other? I would also like to contest the idea of not including this guest cast information. The episode article is primarily about what is seen on-screen and its development. Noting that Shearer went onto play other roles after this one is a tiny note that informs the reader - which is after all the purpose of MA - of that fact. If they want to go on and read into it further, they can then visit the actor's page and see his biography; it's not like we're copying his whole page word for word, we're talking about two lines of information. It's just a small note that informs the reader they have appeared in other episodes, therefore linking everything in together. To me, that's what MA is supposed to be about, is it not? Furthermore, if the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion feels it is relevant to include - and this is an official publication - why don't we? --| TrekFan Open a channel 10:05, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

The Companion doesn't have hyperlinks that you can click for more information. :) --31dot 10:08, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, I'm well aware of the fact that we are not tv.com and, actually, I didn't say I'm not moaning (we all are, so it seems!) ;) Even though I know tv.com is far different from a wiki, it's a good precedent for this matter and shows a considerable level of support for the idea of including the info. What I meant by the fact that we don't agree with you is that the guest cast info only becomes "unrelated content" that "[loads] down pages" if you subscribe to your belief system, which is not decently sensible. --Defiant 10:16, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
I just fail to see how a couple of lines of text is bogging down an article that is about the episode itself, in which these people appeared. It's not as if we're talking about some "Joe Bloggs" of a background actor appearing in several episodes of DS9. These are Trek actors with multiple appearances. It's hardly worth arguing about yet does, in my opinion, add to the article in a positive way. --| TrekFan Open a channel 10:26, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

(To Defiant, Edit conf)The "unrelation" begins when something is discussed that did not occur and has nothing to do with the content or production of this episode. It has nothing to do with this episode that Shearer later(or prior) played a different role in a different episode unrelated to this one. If you had evidence that he was specifically chosen for this episode due to a prior appearance, or was chosen for a future episode based on his appearance here, that's a different matter, but that's not what the comment claims. It only says that (to paraphrase) "he did this other work". That is actor information, not production information. Using your reasoning, the only articles on this site should be the episode articles.--31dot 10:27, March 2, 2011 (UTC) (Moved from "Votes") This is not the type of thing that is voted on by majority vote, content is arrived at by consensus.--31dot 10:28, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

The votes are there to illustrate who is supportive of the inclusion and who is against. It makes it clear as to who is of which opinion and also shows where the majority lies. --| TrekFan Open a channel 10:35, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
@31dot: Of course I don't think we should just have episode articles here! We can use the performer articles to flesh out info about the actors, such as non-Trek productions that they got involved with, etc., etc., just as happens currently. There's a major difference between the tiny notes we're suggesting here and the performer pages, and that's pretty obvious. As for the voting system, we're determining consensus via the vote. If you suggested another method of doing so, it would probably be more helpful than just your repeated complaints. --Defiant 10:43, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
"Concensus" doesn't mean everyone agrees. It means "more than the majority" agrees. I.e. there is widespread support for an idea. --| TrekFan Open a channel 11:00, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
As an aside -- we are not tv.com. If you want tv.com, go there. Information not relevant to the episode at hand should not be on the episode page. What else a writer wrote, or whatever else a performer was in should not be there.
Also -- the material has now been reverted 3+ times. The latest being a re-addition by Defiant with the comment that it is "common sense". The page has now been protected for a day.
Finally, as noted above -- we do not "vote" on things here. We come to consensus. And consensus is not "majority rules." That's a vote. -- sulfur 11:03, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
Why do you insist that consensus means "100% of users agree". It doesn't. It means there is general or widespread agreement, meaning there could be 20 users that vote on this issue and if only 2 people oppose it, that is still consensus. We should allow and encourage other users to vote on the issue to get a better feel of the community. --| TrekFan Open a channel 11:08, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
Sulfur, you're protection of this page was in direct violation of the protection policy, as it states both, "Do not protect a page if you are involved in the process that makes protection necessary in the first place," and, "In general, administrators should not protect pages which they have edited in the past (this includes discussing the article on the talk page)." So, the page now needs to be unlocked. Furthermore, you've been repeatedly asked not to direct personal comments (to anyone) in your edit summaries, yet you still persist. Also, "the night" is a subjective term here on the web; you might want to keep that in mind! --Defiant 11:15, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
Please do not edit a protected page to change disputed content - especially if you are a part of that dispute! I've reverted that change for the moment, and ask everyone to not change it again while the page is protected. Also, while not having read the whole novel-length discussion this time, I'd like to remind people of votes not being the same as consensus - while there are just "support votes" below, there seems to be an agreement to not having all that information in the article between at least some contributors here (the same addition was removed by at least three different people, after all!). -- Cid Highwind 11:16, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
The vote section was added for the benefit of people like you, Cid, who have just come along and seen the discussion so they can see outright who is of which opinion. Can I also ask you to remove the FA nomination banner from the article since I have now archived the nomination? Thanks. Furthermore, Defiant is right in that for some of us it's not the middle of the night, it's 11:25am on Wednesday 2nd March 2011. Sorry if we don't abide by US time (in any incarnation). --| TrekFan Open a channel 11:26, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
If it was for the benefit of a passerby, it would be a summary of the discussion, not a separate section that does not reflect what has been discussed so far. Also, BTW, it seems as if the version I reverted this to can in fact be considered pre-dispute. Does anyone disagree with that? -- Cid Highwind 11:28, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be pre-dispute, but could you remove the FA nomination banner? --| TrekFan Open a channel 11:47, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
Despite personally being of the opinion that the omission of small guest cast notes that could probably be very interesting and useful for readers is basically nonsensical and the fact that those in opposition to that belief have not contributed their own view to the votes below, I will consider it to be the most common belief that such guest cast notes should not be included in episode articles and will therefore also consider it that, whether literally or not, a consensus on the topic has basically been reached. Perhaps we could add something about this in the policies and guidelines, advising users not to add such info? --Defiant 12:04, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
I still think we should leave this conversation open for a little while so other users can add to it should they wish. --| TrekFan Open a channel 12:09, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
I would definitely advise against making that a written policy, because this is what is called "instruction creep" over at WP. "Policies" should be reserved for really major decisions, not for something like this, which is comparably minor in the grand scheme of things. What could be done is the creation of a "suggested layout for a good episode article", which could then include "do's" and "dont's" like this one (although that, too, might be more work than it's worth)... -- Cid Highwind 13:04, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
Well, we already have Help:How to write a great article. Perhaps something there? --Defiant 13:15, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
Maybe not, actually; it seems quite general. --Defiant 13:17, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
Either that, or we should think about the general reasoning behind this removal, instead of the specific case that is being discussed here. I'm not sure whether that is already an explicit rule somewhere but, at least implicitely, we have been using the following guidelines for a long times already:
  • Avoid content duplication where possible
  • Put information where it belongs most
These general guidelines, used for this specific case, would result in information about an actor being placed on the article about that actor, and nowhere else. Isn't that what we're looking for? -- Cid Highwind 13:20, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, so it seems. What about articles about (for example) some of the two-parters, then, where some notes could apply to both episodes? Do we feature the notes on both episode articles? --Defiant 13:32, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
BTW, and just to make sure: I guess you're checking that the information you're removing from episode articles already exists on actor pages? And, if not, move them there? Could be construed as "disrupting MA to prove a point", else... -- Cid Highwind 13:33, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
I guess the "two-parter notes" problem is one best discussed if and when that problem arises in a specific case, and not preemptively here. It really depends on the exact note. -- Cid Highwind 13:39, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
I still find the whole no-additional-appearances-of-guest-cast thing very problematic. Where do we draw the line, for example? Do we list, on episode articles, props that are used in other episodes or not? Do we omit the work of other production personnel, besides the guest cast? The whole thing seems very, very confusing (for me, at least). --Defiant 00:55, March 4, 2011 (UTC)
We definitely seem to be cutting the line a lot finer than wikipedia. For example, their article "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" was fairly recently a featured article on their main page. Yet, there are several examples on that page of the issue that is being disallowed here (examples of this can be found in the Cast section of the article, where there's a note that Mark Lenard played both the Klingon commander in the film and the character of Sarek elsewhere in Star Trek, as well as in the Music) section, which lists Jerry Goldsmith's Star Trek credits). Something seems up with this, as in some cases (like the "instruction creep" thing), we are basically copying WP. Very strange! --Defiant 01:13, March 4, 2011 (UTC)

This isn't Wikipedia. We might use some of their management policies, but they are a different animal than we are. We have a much narrower scope which permits us to better divide information. Information on the episode pages should have to do with its development. Simply saying that a guest cast member did other Star Trek work doesn't do that, unless there is proof their other work was related to this episode somehow, such as producers liking their performance. The mere appearance of a prop should only be noted in the References section, unless some significant production aspect of the prop was related to producing a particular episode(such as when a prop was created or altered). Same goes for crew- for example noting Robert Hewitt Wolfe's last episode is fine, but that episode doesn't need his complete work history. That's just what I think.--31dot 01:43, March 4, 2011 (UTC)

That's cool; we're all entitled to our own opinions, after all! :) I thank you for expressing yours. But could you give more info as to what you mean by "[having] a much narrower scope [...] permits us to better divide information"? I personally doubt that's the way WP users would see it! --Defiant 01:50, March 4, 2011 (UTC)

While I like WP I sometimes find myself getting lost in their information while looking for something- since we just cover Star Trek we don't have that problem which makes it easier to keep each page on its subject.--31dot 09:19, March 4, 2011 (UTC)

VotesEdit

Just to keep track of everyone's views in the hopes we can come to some sort of majority on this issue:

Vote Support for inclusion of guest cast info; Oppose against the inclusion. I suggest any comments/opinions remain in the above section.
  • Support inclusion of said information. --| TrekFan Open a channel 10:22, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support --Defiant 10:25, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove Defiant's Admin Status for continuing an edit war just because he can edit articles that are protected, calls other people's ideas "stupid suggestions" and accuses people with differing opinions of simply "moaning," and generally behaving in a highly unprofessional manner, even to the point of humorously warring over the protection status. --OuroborosCobra talk 11:13, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
I've given examples of why the protection of the article was in violation of policy. --Defiant 11:23, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
So the hell what? Does that justify being an active belligerent in an edit war, include while the article was still protected? No, admins should be above such behavior. Does that include calling other people's suggestions "stupid" and belittling them as simply moaning? No, admins should be above such things. You abuse your admin tools, you are abusive to others opinions, and your behavior is an embarrassment to this website. You've no moral authority to wield the responsibilities of a sysop. --OuroborosCobra talk 11:25, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
I admit that I may have taken this discussion a bit personally at times. Sorry for anything I've done that may have caused offense, but I also find your reaction (as well as sulfur's initial attack on me, by accusing of me "martyred shit") also offensive. --Defiant 11:37, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
If you are wanting to discuss removing Defiant's admin status, may I suggest you do it in the appropriate place and not on an article talk page? Additionally, in defence of Defiant, there are people (example, Sulfur) who come across very sarcastic, demeaning and abusive when talking to other users which is bound to promote a likewise response. Though I do not necessarily agree with all that Defiant has said or done, I can 100% completely understand it and to be honest, I don't blame him! --| TrekFan Open a channel 11:41, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
If anyone still feels that my admin status should be removed, I'd be open to that happening. I feel it might save me a bit from being personally attacked so much in the future and that, if such a stripping of my admin rights & responsibilities is called for, it would be only fare of me to accept that. --Defiant 14:58, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Better PictureEdit

Ds9 destruction

The Runabout blocks the image of DS9 exploding

Could we possibly get a better picture of DS9 exploding, one without the Runabout? It kind of blocks our view. - Mitchz95 21:16, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

How many temporal jumps? Edit

The article lists six temporal jumps in total. But in the last scene O'Brien uses future information that we didn't see him obtaining. I think it implies that there has been at least one more temporal jump, problably after the plot with the Romulans was ended. Perhaps the radiation was not totally gone from his system yet. In this seventh jump, O'Brien learns that docter Bashir will hit the darts bord and when there will be a dabo. This also implies that at the moment the last scene takes place, a secondary O'Brien must be around somewhere close. But we don't get to see him.

Do you agree, or is there another way O'Brien could have obtained the information? Julya (talk) 00:49, January 2, 2013 (UTC)

The last scene was the future O'Brien who had gone to the past. He had already seen what happened in Quark's. It could also be that O'Brien was just yanking Quark's chain and didn't really know what happened. 31dot (talk) 00:53, January 2, 2013 (UTC)

I think you are right. The future O'Brien doesn't get his information from a time jump, but from his primary time line. The scene takes place shortly after the exposure of the Romulans, and before the future O'Brien originally went to bed. Thanks! 131.211.245.241 16:23, January 3, 2013 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki