Talk:Star Trek: The Original Series
I am concerned about the use of MemoryAlpha links instead of Wikipedia links. This doesn't follow standard Wikiquote practice, and improperly promotes a non-Wikimedia Foundation website. Unless there is are compelling reasons to make such a major exception in this case, we need to replace external links with Wikipedia ones. (We're already way outside standard practices by linking all the episode titles.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- The MemoryAlpha links were originally used in the article when I began working on it, so naturally I assumed it's okay to use them and ended up using them a lot. Mainly because it seems that MemoryAlpha contains a lot more information about Star Trek than wikipedia. But I agree with you Jeff, it might be better to leave just the external link pointing to MemoryAlpha and fix the links in the article itself to wikipedia.
- Maybe even remove all the episode title links. Although, I just checked, and it seems that wikipedia also has articles of each TOS episode. The thing is: Star Trek is in general very well documented compared to some of the tv-series today. Normal tv-series don't necessarily have articles in wikipedia of each episode. ST:TOS has, thanks to a huge fanbase, so I'd say it might actually be good to link to them since the articles do exist. And they seem to contain very detailed information of the episodes, at least the ones I glanced through did.
- I'd say let's keep the episode title links, just change them to wikipedia articles.--Kimmo Laine 16:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- I've already discussed the issues of avoiding problematic heading links vs. including logical episode links at Talk:MST3K#Links to Wikipedia film articles, and have yet to receive any response from the readers there. This is one of many, many Wikiquote issues that have a compelling reason to be discussed but lack any meaningful community involvement. It would probably be best to bring it up at Wikiquote talk:Templates/TV shows, but I doubt we'll get any significant action on this in the near future. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
After 126.96.36.199 (talk · contributions) started attacking the MemoryAlpha-to-Wikipedia link conversion in modest chunks and attempted to resolve problems with links to the episode-numbered headings, I decided to take advantage of my fancy text editor to mass-update this article in two ways:
- I completed 24's MA->WP link conversion. I also fixed and verified all 180 related links (4 headings, 78 episodes, 6 films, and 6 utility links in the TOC; 79 WP episodes, 6 WP films, and 1 WQ article link in the section headings).
- I removed the episode numbers, as they are recommended primarily to allow proper episode sorting. This becomes irrelevant to Wikiquote's needs when all episodes of a completed series are listed, and removing those danged episode numbers avoids link problems and several messy editing issues.
I also changed the current-standard "Unknown episode" to "Unidentified episode". This may seem a minor point, but it's been sticking in my craw that we have quotes in these TV-show articles whose episode is supposedly "unknown", but are actually just not yet placed. I plan to update Wikiquote:Templates/TV shows to reflect this subtle point.
In the latest update by Philip Stevens the category Science fiction TV shows was removed. As Star Trek The Original Series is primarily a Science fiction TV show, I don't frankly understand why this was changed? Unless it was to remove redundancy, since the article is under Star Trek, which itself is a sub category of Sci-fi TV shows. --Kimmo Laine 20:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- That's exactly right. WikiMedia Category policy is not to include an article in both a category and its parent (or grandparent, etc.). Articles may be included in multiple categories that aren't directly related, like "SF films" and "Star Trek" (under "SF TV shows"), or "SF books" and "SF films", etc. The system is not perfect (we still haven't come up with a nice way to collect members recursively, in order to show, for example, all TV shows), but it eliminates a lot of redundant inclusions. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Form a new section called Star Trek MoviesEdit
There are lots of quotes building up in Star Trek: The Original Series and Star Trek: The Next Generations. I propose we add a new section called Star Trek Movies and move all movies from both sections there. This is the most common way that other websites section off the franchise, such as the official site, startrek.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- I have a better idea. Let's establish separate articles for each film, just like we do for nearly all other films. Each article would include a "See also" section that lists the articles on the other films as well as all the TV series. The TV series articles should also include this list. In fact, Star Trek is substantial enough to justify a navigation section at the bottom, if someone cares to create one. (But that's only after we have all 16 articles.) Star Trek is more than popular enough to justify this expansion. This would also avoid issues of cast crossovers in 3 of the last 4 films, especially Generations. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- The transition has begun. Jeffq has started ten seperate articles, one for each Star Trek film. However, the transition has only begun. Much still needs to be done before the movie quotes can be removed from the TOS and TNG pages. CALQL8 01:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Are there quotes that haven't been transferred yet? If not, the film sections should be deleted from the TV articles immediately, lest editors start adding quotes in only one or the other place and needlessly create a synchronization problem. The film articles do need improvement, but I'm not aware of any issues with the quotes themselves. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- I am not aware of any missing quotes (maybe I should check), but links from the movie articles in wikipedia would lead to Star Trek: The Original Series. They need to be changed, along with any others out there that lead to movies here. Maybe you're right, though, if people start adding quotes to the series' pages, it could get more confusing to fix later, very fast. CALQL8 03:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- CALQL8, unless you plan to check right away, I recommend removing film quotes ASAP. It is easier to copy missing quotes from an old version of an article than to synchronize two live articles, and pointless to do the latter when the goal is not to have any film quotes in TV articles. I should have checked the WP film articles' WQ links when I was created the WQ film articles; I'll rectify that right now. Thanks for the reminder. Unfortunately, MediaWiki software doesn't make it easy yet to find links between projects, so we'll have to rely on WP editors to fix any other illogical links. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I see that there is some interest in un-redirecting WP links in the headings. I would advise against it for two main reasons:
- Wikipedia Star Trek articles are currently ignoring WP practice of not disambiguating articles that need no disambiguation. This is only one of many problems with the current set of Star Trek articles there. (I admit this surprised me, as I'd expect ST to have more conscientious editors than Buffy and other TV shows that are doing a better job.) Sooner or later, someone is going to fix this problem by switching silly articles like "For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky (TOS episode)" to the dab-less titles. When that happens, we'll just have to undo the work. Current Wikipedia policy is not to bother fixing single redirects without a compelling reason, which seems quite wise for us to follow in this situation.
- Having links at all in section headings is against Wikimedia practices for several reasons. One major reason is that it can mess up a number of practices, including the use of headings in edit summaries and some forms on linking from outside (like page history section links and redirects). This problem is exacerbated by using titles that are longer than necessary, like pointless disambiguations. If we're going to have heading links, they should be as short as possible without being inaccurate or misleading.
You're dead, Jim.Edit
I have reviewed "Amok Time" and "The Tholian Web" multiple times, and I can't find that McCoy ever says "You're dead, Jim." (They both use to have this line in as a quote, but I removed it.) I also don't recall hearing that line in any other TOS episode. I added it to the Unidentified episode section for the time being, but I propose we add the following entry to the Common misquotations in the article:
- You're dead, Jim. - Leonard McCoy
I already added this in the article as a comment (doesn't show in article, only in edit). I just want to make sure that this is okay. Am I wrong? Does this line actually exist some where and I just keep missing it? -- CALQL8 05:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- After your research, CALQL8, I thought it was warranted to remove the quote from "Unidentified episode" and uncomment it in "Misattributed". I commend your efforts to verify this quote (as well as all your other efforts on this article!). If someone else can cite the exact scene in either episode where this is said, they are welcome to re-add it to the appropriate episode, although if it's still missing from either one, it should probably still have the Misattributed entry for that episode. By the way, I changed "Frequent misquotations" to "Misattributed" because (A) it's more of a standard heading, and (B) it provides a place for any reasonable misattributions, not just the most famous ones. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
All of the internal redirects at the top of the page that redirect to episodes where quotes have been added around the title are broken. Those are going to have to be fixed, and unfortunately I don't have time to do it right now.--Zequist 05:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, now they work. Sorry. -- CALQL8 08:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
She can't take much more of this, Captain.Edit
I added this quote to the "misattributed" area because, despite its fame, I don't remember it ever actually being used, nor can I find any examples of it from scanning the transcripts. I haven't seen some of the movies in years and haven't seen the animated series at all, so I don't know/can't remember if it ever popped up in either of those media. Feel free to make a note if it (or something close to it) did, or if I overlooked a scene in TOS somewhere.--Zequist 15:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone Please Add...Edit
SPOCK: I've noticed that about your people, Doctor. You find it easier to understand the death of one than the death of a million. You speak about the objective hardness of the Vulcan heart, yet how little room there seems to be in yours.
MCCOY: Suffer the death of thy neighbour, eh, Spock? You wouldn't wish that on us, would you?
SPOCK: It might have rendered your history a bit less bloody.
- from: The Immunity Syndrome
I don't wanna go through the motions of formatting and all, but that was one of my favorite TOS exchanges, and I was disappointed that it wasn't in here when I was searching the web for the exact words. --Anon 17:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Done ~ UDScott 18:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Wait ... whaaaat?Edit
Currently in the Misattributed section is this bit of nonsense: "You're dead, Jim" attributed to McCoy. Not only did McCoy never say anything so ridiculous but what was the original poster thinking when he posted it? Did McCoy ever look at Kirk's corpse and say, "You're dead, Jim"(??!!) (If so, where did this take place?) If no one objects I'm going to remove it as it looks more like the action of vandalism than anything else. __184.108.40.206 03:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
How can this be missing?!?Edit
• "Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before."
Seriously people, did someone remove all your brains as well?
220.127.116.11 03:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)