Talk:List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a former featured list candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.

This article is part of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Star Trek Portal

List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes is part of WikiProject List of Television Episodes, which aims to improve, standardize, and guide episode lists on Wikipedia.

Looking to help? Check out the to-do list:

List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

[edit] New Business

There was a contest to win a brief appearance on an episode during the third season. It was with stickers in cereal boxes.

[edit] Order of episodes

The production numbers disagree with the TNG episode guide at EpGuides.com. I believe the episodes were indeed not aired in the order they were filmed, as is common for TV shows. What is the source of the numbers given here, other than assigning them consecutively as the air dates come?

The numbering is intended to be the episode number not a production number however they have been formatted in the style of a production number. I will make another column with the production numbers, perhaps the episode numbers can be made clearly different? I will leave them alone for now Discordance 21:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] False links

Please note that many of these titles, like Inheritance will lead to false links, and need to be disambiguated to something like Inheritance - Anon.

The only one that doesn't is Darmok. Morwen 17:30, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The same is true of the links in List of Star Trek DS9 episodes. - Anon.

Wouldn't it have been better to correct the links than remove them completely? I realized when adding links that this would generate some false leads, but I wanted to get the ball rolling. Maybe we just need to come up with a standard? I submit that we use the shorthand for Trek episodes in the links - TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT. Seems the most practical route to me. Something like Inheritance. - StAkAr Karnak

I would like to add some episode descriptions as well as a list of some plot arcs (like every episode involving Worf's Klingon heritage/family) with references to the individual episodes. Any objections to me adopting the Inheritance (TNG) form for new links? - 66.108.255.77 03:53, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! On the subject of plot arcs, should we distinguish from character arcs? (ie Data's quest to be Human (character) vs. Borg episodes (plot)) - StAkAr Karnak 14 Dec 2003

[edit] Tables

This isn't about this particular page; rather, it's a suggestion for all the episode pages themselves. I think it would be a good idea to have a navigation back-and-forth sort of thing along the bottom of each episode page. I'm not describing what I mean very well, so see Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back for an example of what I mean. There's a table at the bottom of the article that's three cells wide: the left has a link to the previous movie, the center has a link to the main Star Wars page, and the right links to the following movie. I'm suggesting something like that. Any thoughts? -Branddobbe 04:36, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

I agree, Branddobbe. Is there an easy way to create a simple script like {{Msg:spoiler}} that we could simply add to each page instead of copying a table or such?

Acegikmo1

I'm going to put in the table on the bottom of currently existing episode pages; if anyone has any objections you are of course welcome to discuss the matter at my talk page. -Branddobbe 20:07, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

The easy way is to use Wikipedia:MediaWiki custom elements. --Shallot

My understanding is that in order to do that we would need to have a list of every single TNG episode on the each page, which at 178 episodes would be unwieldly, to say the least. -Branddobbe 19:17, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

See how the departments of France message did that with numbers... but yeah, that probably isn't what you want. Manual tables look like the way to go. :/ --Shallot

[edit] Linking all episodes

I reinstated the links to all the episodes, in hopes that this will encourage people to write the articles. For ones that are in danger of being confused with another, unrelated topic, I used the clarification "(Star Trek)" (such as Justice (TNG episode), and where even that would lead to confusion I used (TNG episode) as a further clarification (such as Sarek (TNG episode)). -Branddobbe 03:51, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

I was thinking about doing this myself, but I'm glad you got to it first. I think something has to be done about The Best of Both Worlds (Part 2), however. Perhaps we should link all two-part episodes to the same article. What do you think?

Acegikmo1 04:02, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

I think that's probably a good idea. In the article for whatever two-part episode, though, there should be a part that says "this is where the break between the two episodes was" (although not in those words, of course). I'm on it. -Branddobbe 04:12, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Standardization

More talk about standardizing episode articles:

Should the titles be italicized, "inside quotation marks", or having nothing to signify them at all? When I ask this I exclude this actual article, the list of episodes; it is hard to read a list of items that are italicized or in quotation marks or whatever. I am referring to the article title, and to links to other episodes.
Could we drop the footnoted references? They're very distracting. I'm not opposed to a list of references at the end of an article, but the notations in the article itself seem silly and pointless. I would go so far as to suggest that references are wholly unnecessary unless a source other than the episode was used (for example, the episode synopses at StarTrek.com).
What verb tense should we use within the article? Should we go with the present, as is generally customary in synopses, or should we go with the past, which would align better with things such as the character articles?

I look forward to your ideas and replies. Your friend Richie, end of letter. -Branddobbe 04:18, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

1. I'd go with the quotation marks. I've always seen in style books that big works like TV series are italicized, and smaller, especially constituent, things like episodes are in quotations. 2. Yes. 3. I'd go with the present. I think it would be less distracting in synopses because it gives the feeling of the action unfolding, as though you're watching the show. I like the character descriptions as they are; past tense, I think, is better for those because they're very high-level views of events in the past over a long period from the viewpoint of the present (in the Trek universe, that is; whenever it was at the end of Nemesis, I suppose), rather than a series of very closely set events, if you can see what I'm trying to say. -- Djinn112 05:34, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

"The titles of books, plays, movies, radio and television programs, long musical compositions, operas, pamphlets, periodicals, etc., should be italicized, while titles of book series, film series, radio and television episodes, songs, essays, lectures, and parts of volumes (chapters, titles of papers, etc.) should be placed in quotation marks." - University Publications Editorial Style Guide. Using quotation marks would be most correct, although IMO leaving them without formatting ins't terribly bad.
I must respectfully disagree with you. I don't find them distracting, and I think that the articles should contain as many references as possible and that they should be in the proper format.
I think they flow best in the present tense.

Acegikmo1 05:43, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

A bit of a tedious task perhaps, but I think the episode name (or 'Title') columns should immediately follow the # column. The episode name is more important than the airdate and stardate and so should precede them. It will then match with DS9/VOY/ENT episode lists. It could be done season by season, so long as someone else doesn't undo the changes midway! The same applies for TOS episodes. If agreed, perhaps a few people can commit to do a season each... Let me know by filling your username after the season you will do, replacing 'me'. I will do any remaining one(s) marked 'me' in a few days, unless there are any objections? Marky1981 00:47, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've completed moving the title column for both TNG and TOS. Commander 03:22, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

That's great! I thought it would take ages, well done! Marky1981 15:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adding synopses

I've begun adding synopses to the episodes in the listing in order to encourage the building of full articles (and because to me, the synopsis is the most important aspect of an episode description). I am trying my best to make the references as full as possible, but since I'm new to this entire system I'm bound to be missing a few every now and then.

Any comments on narration or anything else is very welcome. To begin with I'll be adding synopses for the first season during the next week or so, at the pace I review the episodes myself.

Shirokuma, apr 21 14:54 CET

[edit] Deleting "the title of" from opening sentence

I'd like to change the opening sentence of every Star Trek episode. For example, in the case of Conundrum (Star Trek)

"Conundrum" is the title of a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode, from the fifth season. Its episode number is 214, and it first aired on 17 February 1992.

would become

"Conundrum" is a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode, from the fifth season. It is episode number 214, and it first aired on 17 February 1992.

The main change is to remove "the title of". The point is, "Conundrum" is the name of the episode, but it's also the actual episode itself. Secondarily, I unlinked aired and season, which aren't particularly relevant links.

Of course, I won't make such a big change without consensus. Opinions? Dbenbenn 19:10, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)'

I think that will do a fair bit to make the introductions more lucid. I support and encourage your plan. Thank you. Acegikmo1 20:24, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That is a big change? Heh, I would have done that without concensus. It is a slight improvement and any is better than none. --metta, The Sunborn ☥ 06:17, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I had thought there were hordes of Trekkies here who would express vehement opinions. If I had known how deserted the topic is here I wouldn't waited either. Dbenbenn 08:37, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New table format

I'd like to propose a new table format. I'd go ahead and change it all but it's a lot of work and would like to do it right the first time.

See the first season on the list for the proposed change. I originally had the first 5 episodes here, but opted to try for a full season.

Thoughts/comments? Cburnett 00:05, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Looks good! Like the idea of the pictures. Only thing is it makes the table a lot longer! Any ideas on how to collape the two rows per episode together into one? Marky1981 00:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about now? Cburnett 00:25, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

That looks better as it is more compact. I think the general design is good but we can play around with the exact design as we go along. Just have a play round with it, try putting the pics on the right etc. Good job though! Marky1981 00:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thats pretty cool, but I only have pics up to half of season 3. After that I'm at a loss for good images like these. Unless someone has them on DVD and can make me a few. The site I got them from only went to season 3. I don't know if they'll continue the screen captures after that. They have a few for others past that, but they're crappy VCR or TV screen images. I guess "no pic" can do until we can find more. I'm trying to get the image that best captured the mood of the episode. Cyberia23 01:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, but not everything can be done at once. :) Just have to wait for the pics. I think we should get whatever screenshot we can, then upload new if a better one is found. Cburnett 01:09, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

And, by all means, don't wait for me so feel free to convert seasons to the new format. Cburnett 01:28, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I been kinda busy lately, I'll have a revision of The Neutral Zone up soon though. Maybe tomorrow. Cyberia23 06:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New table formats are done. Just need 147 screenshots now... Cburnett 07:08, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Episode comments

I think we should be careful from saying anything more than what would be in the lead of the episode; ie. before the credits... otherwise we may have to put in a spoiler warning. Ideally for an episode list there is no spoilers. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I put a spoiler warning on the other day (see the top) that they may contain spoilers, but effort is made to limit them. I think the overviews should contain most of the plot details, but most episodes have a climax/plot twist and that's ultimately what I aim to not spoil. For example, in Unnatural Selection it's revealed after the credits and before the next commerical that the Lantree crew dies of old age, but it's the fact that it's the children causing it that's the climax/plot twist of the episode which is why I don't have a problem including the rapid aging in the overview.

Really, though, to exclude any spoilers would pretty much require the removal of all the overviews. Some spoilers will need to be said to describe the episode and my goal is to tell enough that people who have seen the episode will easily recall it but not ruin the episode to those who haven't (like saying the Farpoint station is an alien; or that Lore teamed up with the crystalline entity and that caused the colony's death; or that Wesley becomes a traveller; etc.). Cburnett 17:33, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I think that the "list of" page should be as spoiler-free as possible; spoilers should be restricted to the pages of the specific episodes. I've been watching the show's reruns on Spike lately for the first time, and I've found this article very useful for getting an overview of which episodes are coming and which ones I've seen, etc. It's use to a first-time viewer like me disappears if there are spoilers in the little episode blurbs, warning or no. I've been concerned lately about some additions made recently to these blurbs, which are at least borderline spoilers and seem too hyperbolic for Wikipedia's tone. For example, "Elementary, Dear Data" has a blurb of two sentences, the second of which has been added recently: "Geordi asks the holodeck to make a Sherlock Holmes villain that can defeat Data. However the resulting Professor Moriarty soon appears far more powerful than estimated!" The first sentence was a good, concise summary, and the second is not needed and sounds like an official promotion. Similarly, in "Where Silence Has Lease:" "The Enterprise becomes enveloped by a "hole in space" containing a Romulan warship and a duplicate Enterprise, but find it's not accidental - it's the work of a powerful alien." The "powerful alein" mentioned doesn't appear until halfway through, and the tension of the episode's first half depends on the uncertainty about this hole in space. I've removed one of these bonus sentences on the episode "Conspiracy," but there are more, and I'd like to know the consensus before trying to delete them on a larger scale.MRig 06:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] STNG Images

The image for "The Enemy" needs to be much brighter; and a new image should be acquired for Geordi La Forge. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll see about a new capture when I get a chance. Cburnett 17:23, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Also "The Icarus Factor" needs a new image... ideally showing Riker and his father. Worf's initiation image can still be used in the episodes article, but his story is a sub-plot. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, almost all episodes have an image now. I can't help with the four missing from season 5, nor "The Icarus Factor" nor "The Enemy". Cburnett 01:55, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Well done! I'll be able to do those if they appear on TV. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] trivia to episode "Starship Mine", since that article doesn't exist yet

The actor who plays Tuvok makes an appearance as a thief (he's the first one Picard encounters). His ears are normal though, so it's not the character Tuvok. (clem 16:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page Moves and Title Problems

I noticed a great deal of link problems with the episode titles. Some are listesd as "Episode Title" while others link to "Episode Title (Star Trek)" while still others say "Episode Title (TNG Episode)". A massive cleanup is needed and a standard title should be agreed upon. -Husnock 05:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A standard title has already been agreed upon. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek and that is "TITLE (TNG episode)".

I started tonight — after putting up all the screenshots I can — with the massive title clean-up. I got through the first season and am quitting for the night. Just in case someone cares to help, you basically have to:

Move the article to "TITLE (TNG episode)"
Fix all redirects to point to "TITLE (TNG episode)" as applicable
If in fixing redirects you find other usages (such as Coming of Age) then create a dab page

Cburnett 06:21, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Done through season 2. Cburnett 20:15, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-peer review

I'm thinking of putting this up for peer review to see about making this a featured article. I think this is one of the finest episode lists on WP. Or, more correctly, I don't know of an episode list that comes close to it.

My thoughts:

A "flashier" introduction
A list of dates when each season was released on DVD
Changing the bgcolor of the header row of each season to match the season DVD color (compare List of The Simpsons episodes#Season 2 (1990-1991) vs. List of The Simpsons episodes#Season 3 (1991-1992)
Perhaps a picture of each DVD season under each heading?
An article for each episode...but I don't see why that should hold up this article being a FA

Others? Cburnett 05:38, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Good ideas, colors is a must in my opinion. How would the pic of DVD's under headings work? Would it be overkill? As to redlinks, I can virtually guarantee that would keep it from being a FA, but perhaps the FL (featured list) criteria is different? Peer review would certainly clarify that. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Colors are added with a custom TOC so the colors make sense to someone who doesn't know. Cburnett 06:39, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I also added a "character movements" column. I hope it doesn't make the TOC too busy but I think it's interesting to see when major characters come and go. Cburnett 07:27, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Colors used

Here mostly for reference. These are the semi-random colors I chose:

Season #	Color	Hue	Saturation	Value/brightness	Hex
1	Red	0	25	100	#FFBFBF
2	Orange	30	25	100	#FFDFBF
3	Yellow	60	25	100	#FFFFBF
4	Green	125	25	100	#BFFFC4
5	Light blue	180	25	100	#BFFFFF
6	Dark blue	205	25	100	#BFE4FF
7	Purple	290	25	100	#F4BFFF

Cburnett 06:20, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Can we use these colours to separate the episodes (as opposed to the nasty grey!) - and perhaps decrease the separation thickness? Marky1981 23:32, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I tried a screen full of color separators and it looked kinda weird. Go ahead, change a screen full and preview it and see what you think.

I've changed the separator rows from grey to the same colour as the header and I think it looks much better! Marky1981 10:47, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can live with it. :) Cburnett 14:57, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Re: thinkness. The thickness is dictated by the cellspacing and cellpadding parameters of the table. Since they use {{subst:prettytable}} it will require changing it (thus everywhere else) or creating a second one or something else I can't think of. But, no matter how it's done, it'll change the rest of the table, of course, and not just the separators. Cburnett 01:25, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a lighter gray, or a blue matching the Star Trek logo? - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FYI: The color I used was the same as the color of the table border. Go ahead and try something. I just think there needs to be some space there to visually to separate them. Cburnett 05:29, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I think that this page is good enough and need not be improved.

[edit] Multi-part episodes

If the two multi-part episodes ("Encounter at Farpoint" and "All Good Things...") are counted as single episodes...

But there are other multi-parters, too. Why only those two? –Hajor 30 June 2005 23:10 (UTC)

Seasons are meant to be shown apart; series premiere's and finales are meant to be shown together. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 30 June 2005 23:13 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast. But what about Unification, Chain of Command, Birthright? (Hmmm... seems that two-parters make for some of the best episodes.) –Hajor 30 June 2005 23:20 (UTC)

I see where your going with that, but with different broadcast dates; even one week apart, I'm confident that makes them seperate episodes. If it makes sense for season finales which are months apart to be counted as seperate, then it makes sense to do the same for those. I'm not familiar with tv episode conventions; the closest I've gotten to that is the South Park episode where two guys argue about the number of ST episodes based on The_Menagerie; and whether it counts as one or two. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 1 July 2005 07:12 (UTC)

4th Grade (South Park) :) Cburnett July 1, 2005 07:31 (UTC)

I get you. Other than Encounter at Farpoint" and "All Good Things", none of the two-parters were actually broadcast as a two-hours-in-front-of-the-tv Trekfest -- that's the criterion being used. OK. –Hajor 1 July 2005 13:24 (UTC)

You forgot "Best of both worlds"! July 5, 2005 20:52

[edit] Table of Contents

I like the idea of having a summary of what has happened in each season with regards to character movements, but I don't think putting it in the table of contents is an appropriate place. Perhaps put a section called 'Summary' or something and move the character movements, DVD release dates etc there. The table of contents should just be links to the sections. Marky1981 1 July 2005 09:35 (UTC)

Perhaps all that can go in the introduction? Cburnett July 6, 2005 16:10 (UTC)

[edit] Real people portrayed in Star Trek

Does anyone remember if the character of Albert Einstein was in the episode The Nth Degree as well as Descent? I am filling in the episodes in which real people appear in Star Trek (see List of real people appearing in fictional context#Albert Einstein). If so, please let me know here (or add it yourself to the list and tell me when it's done). Other people in the list include Genghis Khan and Abraham Lincoln (TOS); Mark Twain, Isaac Newton and Stephen Hawking from TNG; Amelia Earhart, Mahatma Gandhi, Lord Byron (Voyager); Adolf Hitler (Enterprise). If you can think of any more, please add them, or let me know here! They must be real people though (not famous people playing a fictional role!). Marky1981 16:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it was Einstein (a holographic-recreation of him.)

[edit] FLC

Why has this wonderful list not been put up as a Featured list? -[[User:JonMoore|— —Jo nMo ore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 00:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I have been waiting for more episode articles to be created so there are no red links on the page, But that's just me. Cburnett 20:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

If we just made the episode pages stubs, would that be OK? If so, we could just go through them quite fast. Marky1981 20:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I just counted 44 episodes that need articles out of the 176 episodes. FWIW. Cburnett 19:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Infringement?

I have noticed that today, a number of the synopses appear to have been filled in with content that is identical to that on the official Star Trek website by user SD6Agent. Take for instance, The_Defector_(TNG_episode) which bears a very strong resemblance to startrek.com's [1]. Are these in the public domain? I’m still new to Wikipedia, but this seems wrong. Even if Paramount’s cool with it, I would much rather have our own synopses which may even diverge from the Paramount party line. Sorry if I’m unnecessarily raking muck, but I love both TNG and Wikipedia and want to make sure this is done right. -- Dwiki 20:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, the synopsis will be somewhat close since they are of the same subject matter. Making a quick comparison betwen The Defector's here and at startrek.com...I don't see that much of a resemblence. Would you do me a favor and copy/pasting what specifically you see resembling?

If there's a synopsis that you think should be changed....then go for it...provided it doesn't spoil the episode or is too lengthy. Cburnett 20:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Did you look closely? As far as I can tell, the Wikipedia entry is word-for-word the same except every instance of "Enterprise" is changed to "U.S.S. Enterprise". Here's the frustrating thing: SD6Agent also put in those useful about-tables on all of the suspect articles after the content was put in. I'm going to try to get to the bottom of this on SD6Agent's discussion page and see if we can work out a solution... Dwiki 04:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

OKAY - please, those who care, take a look at User_talk:SD6-Agent where we've been debating the issue of copyright infringement vis-à-vis these synopses. I would very much appreciate some outside perspective about this issue because we seem to be having a bit of a disagreement. Dwiki 06:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean. At first I thought you were referring to the short description here on the List of TNG episodes, but you mean the individual episode pages' synopses. I think there's a template you can use to say this page contains copyrighted material or something which could be added to the page, so others can change it. Or you could legitimately blank the copyrighted text and make a note on each talk page to say why it has been blanked (so you don't get reverted back for assumed vandalism). It is preferable to have no summary that can be added later, than to have a plagiarised one. If so, it would be helpful to link the ones you've found here so that people can write their own synopses. Marky1981 09:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I went through every TNG episode, looking for content plagiarized from startrek.com. This is what I see needs to be changed:

Episode - responsible party - startrek.com link

Unnatural Selection (TNG episode) - SD6-Agent - [2]

A Matter of Honor (TNG episode) - SD6-Agent - [3]

The Dauphin (TNG episode) - SD6-Agent - [4]

Contagion (TNG episode) - SD6-Agent - [5]

The Icarus Factor (TNG episode) - SD6-Agent - [6]

Pen Pals (TNG episode) - SD6-Agent - [7]

Evolution (TNG episode) - SD6-Agent - [8]

The Ensigns of Command (TNG episode) - SD6-Agent - [9]

The Survivors (TNG episode) - SD6-Agent - [10]

Who Watches the Watchers? (TNG episode) - SD6-Agent - [11]

The Bonding (TNG episode) - SD6-Agent - [12]

Booby Trap (TNG episode) - SD6-Agent - [13]

The Price (TNG episode) - SD6-Agent - [14]

The Vengeance Factor (TNG episode) - SD6-Agent - [15]

The Defector (TNG episode) - SD6-Agent - [16]

The Hunted (TNG episode) - SD6-Agent - [17]

The High Ground (TNG episode) - SD6-Agent - [18]

Deja Q (TNG episode) - SD6-Agent - [19]

Half a Life (TNG episode) - Kenguest (partial) - [20]

Relics (TNG episode) - 217.35.80.160 - [21]

The Pegasus (TNG episode) - 67.100.216.13 - [22]

I'd like a bit more support before remediating as Marky1981 suggested, but I think what needs to be done is pretty clear - these pages need to either be cleared or reverted back to their stub states. Marky1981 - I think the copyright violation template might be a tad more harsh then you remember it:[23]]. We might want to use it, though for entries where all the content back through histories has been in violation. At any rate, I think this should be fixed by early next week. Dwiki 00:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

- Given the fact that these pages have been here for quite some time, where many veteran Wikipedians could have easily deleted them but have not, I think it has become clear that, despite any problem you may see, it's simply not an issue for most here.SD6-Agent 00:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, unless you know what you're looking for, there's really no way to root out copyrighted content of this nature. I discovered it purely by accident. Regardless of this lapse on the part of the Wikipedia machine, and regardless of whether the contributors to these pages care, Wikipedia policy supercedes all of this. The Contributors rights and obligations section of Wikipedia:Copyrights makes it clear: content may only be added to Wikipedia if

you own the copyright to the material, for instance because you produced it yourself, or
you acquired the material from a source that allows the licensing under GFDL, for instance because the material is in the public domain or is itself published under GFDL.

Initially, I was uncertain of Wikipedia policy on this issue, but now I can see how this is being handled elsewhere. A ton of Simpsons Episodes, for example, just got tagged for violations, and that is exactly what should have happened here, a few days ago. What I have learned is that this is a HUGE problem on Wikipedia. In fact, there is a proposal that looks like it might pass called Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Blatant copyvio material, which is trying to eliminate some of the red tape involved with the rapid removal of blatantly commercially-copyrighted content. In conclusion, the Wikipedia community is becoming increasingly intolerant of this sort of infringement, and unless someone can state a good reason why Wikipedia policy doesn't apply to this part of Wikipedia, I will follow the correct procedures to have this content removed tomorrow. Dwiki 20:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

- You're getting in over your head, my Wikifriend. :) SD6-Agent 21:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Please dont change the page until the conflict is resolved. Dudtz 11/1/05 8:37 PM EST

- This discussion was from a while ago. The articles were recently marked as copyvios by another user, AlistairMcMillan. -Dwiki 02:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] (TNG episode)

Why have all of the articles been renamed "xxxx (TNG episode)", even the ones where there's no possibility of confusion? We don't need disambiguation on things that aren't ambiguous! I fixed this on Encounter at Farpoint, but there are still a lot more titles left. Uff. -Branddobbe 08:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

This issue is addressed here and here. Marky1981 10:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Journey's End Description

I changed the "Journey's End" description from

Wesley faces his future as the Enterprise is under orders to forcibly remove people from a planet being given to the Cardassians.

Wesley faces his future as the Enterprise is under orders to forcibly remove future traditional Native Americans from a planet being given to the Cardassians.

I felt that it was notable enough to waste the 36 characters. After all, the fact that the Native Americans have adapted technology into their life enough to travel among hte stars while remaining traditional is astounding and a great feat, is it not? And it is hardly a spoiler, as it is reveiled in the introduction before the opening credits and would be evident to anyone watching the episode from the start. If there's any opposition, please say so.

(I probably wouldn't make that big a deal, but after a recent mistake, I'm making sure of all my edits beforehand.)

[edit] New template

I guess I don't see the need for a template to generate the rows in the tables. It's a, now, fairly established format and not likely to change. To me, it's a solution looking for a problem. Cburnett 00:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I made the template because the some of the rows looked diferent. Now they look fine so I guess it was a bug or something. The template will make it easier to change the design in the future, but delete it if you want to. Gerard Foley 00:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It would also make for easier vandalism and I just haven't seen any complaints about the layout to be worried about changing it. Besides, just wait for the likes of User:Netoholic to find it and put it up for deletion. Cburnett 01:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is the problem with the table. If it's not the table, then what is causing the lines to appear near the end? Gerard Foley 07:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I see this all the time, its a problem with firefox loading the page I think, hitting refresh a few times gives me lines in different places until it manages to load properly. If i'm right then using templates all the way through probably wont solve the problem, i also agree that its unecessary and some people would love to see it deleted or vandalised, it doesnt really simplify use beyond the wikitable markup in fact it looks harder to use. Discordance 12:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I do too and I think it's the border-collapse property. Cburnett 19:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use

The fair-use rational for these images seems somewhat weak, especially as they also appear in the parent articles. - brenneman^{L} 16:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed....they should probably all be removed. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you're getting at. They all have the {screenshot} tag that says Fair Use. As far as I understand screenshots used for illustrative purposes are okay on Wikipedia that's what the tag is for! Also this page was submitted for peer review and although it didn't make a Featured Article no one complained about the screenshots. Cyberia23 23:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Being tagged fair use doesn't mean that they are fair use. Sensitivity to copyright varies wildly, and I'm just suggesting that it bears discussion.
While a very strict reading of the policy would support removing them all while discussions are in place, that's not what I'm asking for right now.

brenneman^{L} 00:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can you read, you haven't asked anything — just stated. If you want to call for a discussion to delete literally hundreds of images then you need to start the discussion with more than an observation. You also have many articles to argue against. Besides, this isn't the proper place for such a discussion considering the scope (it's not just ST:TNG images). Cburnett 01:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled by this everything in this post.

I apologise if by making a section "Fair use" and stating that I thought that the fair use claim was weak it wasn't obvious that I was starting a discussion.
I think that there could conceivably be a problem with the fair use claim on this article and that is should be discussed. To interprate this a call for deletion is unnecessary and divisive. And there aren't literally hundreds.
The "you can't do this until you do that" argument fails because it doesn't adress the question of what's the correct course of action. If there are copyright violations, this line of argument would either have them left as such or removed at one stroke.
This is exactly the place to discuss such things. These images are usd in this article.

brenneman^{L} 01:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you not notice the 4 links I put up (there are more) that to articles that also have screenshots on them...exactly like this article. What you want to discuss is not specific for this article. It's a broader discussion on what consistutes fair use. Exactly like I said: this is not the correct page for such a discussion.

Re starting a discussion: you merely stated something. You didn't explain anything about your assessment of "weak." If you want to start a discussion, then do it. Give something to start it with. Why is it weak? Any guidelines or precedent to back up your assessment? Do you have anything to say beyond a statement? Anything?

That said, "copyright violations" cannot occur without determination by a court of law. Neither you nor I can make such a determination and have it mean a thing. The only thing we can do is make an assessment of it's fair use strength. Certainly this is what you did but you gave no rationale, no points, and no discussion as to why or how you came to that determination. Speak! Please, I hate arguing about an argument so get on with it! Cburnett 04:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is suggesting deleting the images themselves, merely removing them from this articles -- presumably the images are also used in the episode articles, where the justification for their use is likely substantially stronger. In the context of this page, the images seem to serve a mainly decorative purpose -- that, at least, is explicitly forbidden as a justification. The other articles have the same problems as this one, of course. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I see it as identification of the episode, not decoration. Call me a nerd or geek but I could probably identify most episodes based on the screenshot given (if not a combination with the summary). WP:FAIR#Policy number 8 specifically says this: e.g. identify the subject of an article where subject is a specific episode in a list of episodes (the article). Each entry in a list of episodes is specifically meant to identify and describe an episode. I sure as heck wouldn't want to have to click through 176 articles to find the ST:TNG episode Dr. Crusher goes to her grandmother's funeral ("Sub Rosa") and the screenshot identifies it (her next to a gravestone) and the summary does as well. I see no problem. Cburnett 04:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

While I do see them as decoration in a list; they do indeed serve an identification purpose for those familiar with the series. Also it is clear this discussion is beyond the scope of this list and any decision/consensus reached here wouldn't be binding; so it should be had elsewhere. Preferably where policy geeks congregate; the Village pump on policy for example. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the screenshots qualify as fair use as we are using a single image to help "capture the essense" of the episode. As Cburnett says, it would be a lot of effort to have to visit each individual article to find a particular episode, whereas the image would greatly help to remind the reader which episode is being talked about (a picture speaks a thousand words!).

The criteria I personally would impose on whether screenshot images are fair use:

Each image should show the main plot of the episode, so from that one image it is clear which episode it is taken from.
For the list of episodes articles, no more than one image per episode. For an individual episode article, no more than one image per each plot or sub-plot of the episode, and probably no more than 3 images per episode.

Anyone have any other criteria, or want to modify these? Marky1981 09:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tweaks

While I'm here I should make some suggestions for image improvements to the List. This list is starting to get long; but I'll list them all for future reference.

"Heart of Glory" pic of a Klingon isn't terribly illustrative of the plot; I think one of him pointing a phaser in engineering would be better. A wide shot would probably be hard to see in thumbnail (maybe it would work), so a tight shot would probably be better. (hopefully with blue light on him to clarify where he is)
"Conspiracy" key part of the plot, but not distinctive. An image of the Admiral, or a wide shot of the conference, or of Riddick in front of the starchart would be better. Also two pics of Picard in a row isn't good.
"Matter of Honor" has a good pic; but it would be better if we had a shot where Riker and the Klingon captain are interacting.
"The Dauphin" cute pic; but would rather have the girl and chaperone together in a normal setting. Specifically one where the chaperone looks serious and is behind/beside the girl to signify relative importance to the plot.
"The Icarus Factor" image shows a subplot; definitely cool and show stay for inclusion in the episode article; but an image of Riker's father would better evoke the episode from memory.
"Up the Long Ladder" another keeper for the episode article; but with an episode with so many new characters; an image with more of them is preferable.
"Manhunt" does not evoke the episode. Can be confused with other Dixon Hill episode.
"The Ensigns of Command" good pic but girl is in shadow. Another pic where she is more visible; or alternatively a landscape shot.
"The Price" evokes the episode after some thought. With so much negotiations; a shot of the negotiation table and/or key negotiator would be preferable.
"The High Ground" doesn't evoke episode. The shot of her being initially kidnapped would be good; or her with her kidnapper.
"Reunion" could be improved upon. Perhaps a shot of her/son/Worf is possible? But I guess that is a subplot. The thing with Klingon world captures is they almost all look the same. :"D
"The Wounded" doesn't quite evoke the episode.
"Ensign Ro" doesn't evoke the episode, but that could be my fault as I haven't seen that episode for a while.
"The Game" am I correct in thinking there is a shot of Wesley with the game overlayed when talking to Ogawa or O'Brian.
"Birthright" (Part 1) is pretty far along the episode and doesn't jive with the current summary. Maybe a pic with Worf on DS9 with the wrinkle guy; or if the Data plot is prominent enough a memorable pic from his dream. I'd prefer a dream pic; on the bridge.
"Liaisons" can't see the women too well.
"Gambit" (Part 1) and "Gambit" (Part 2) two Picard pics in an episode involving his death is overkill. (pun intended) The first pic should be changed to maybe having Picard in the background; and Beral in the forefront; the second one is okay. I created a new summary since its clear early on Picard is not dead.

Let me be clear; that the vast majority of screen capture are awesome and do this list a tremendous service. On a side note I'm considering making summaries for Part 2 of episodes; but I guess it should be a on a case by case basis. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I picked most of the images for Seasons 1, 2 and part of 3 from various websites. I chose them for their quality overall. Many of the later season images looks like they were taken from VCR captures and their very pixelated and faded. I think the ones I found were from DVD captures and are much better images. As for subject matter - they were based on what I could find available. I know Icarus Factor - in my opinion - was a rather boring episode (but I haven't seen it in a while so I guess I'd have to go back and watch it). Anyway, the coolest image was Worf getting prodded I thought. I know that wasn't the main plot of the episode though. As for Conspiracy - I like the image of Picard with the phaser, his facial expression captures the disgust he feels at the end, and thats why I chose it. Other images of the coucil were kind of boring, and I thought the blasting open of Remmick and the slug that came out of him - although the most memorable image from that episode, wasn't reflective of the emotion of the episode. Same for Heart of Glory - The Klingon's anger (in my opinion) was the real story here and a close up of his face shows that. The Dauphin sould probably use a better image, maybe the girl and her escort, I dunno. Maybe her with Wesley on the holodeck would be better - since Wesley was falling for her throughout the episode. Cyberia23 21:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming conventions poll

There is an ongoing poll and Request for Comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RfC Episode Article Naming conventions which has direct relevance to how to title the Star Trek episode articles, meaning that based on how this poll comes out, many Star Trek episodes may get moved around. All interested editors are therefore strongly encouraged to participate, to ensure that your wishes are incorporated into the consensus process. --Elonka 22:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_Star_Trek%7E_The_Next_Generation_episodes_ab3a.html"

Categories: Wikipedia featured list candidates (contested) | WikiProject List of Television Episodes articles | Old requests for peer review