Talk:Star Trek: The Next Generation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Star Trek: The Next Generation article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
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
TV This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-Importance on the importance scale.
Maintained The following users are actively contributing on this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Eluchil (talk)

Contents

[edit] Bathrooms

I think this point needs to be cleared up a bit. The article says both that "a single toilet was marked in the center of the saucer section" and "bathrooms are never shown on Enterprise schematics". Both obviously cannot be correct, and I'm not sure the best way to reconcile this.

I haven't noticed the toilet on any of the schematics I've seen, but I wouldn't doubt its existence. It's probably related to the ship's giant duck and so on. (See The Art of Star Trek and the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual for more on that.) If we want to be nitpicky, a lone toilet isn't a bathroom... But I think the toilet doesn't count because it doesn't represent a real toilet on the ship, and the intent of the passage on bathrooms in diagrams refers to real bathrooms. --WarpFlyght 09:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the intent of this statement should be that washrooms – actually, toilets – were never depicted on-screen. On the Enterprise-D bridge, there was a "head" on the starboard side of the bridge, and you can ocassionally see extras walking through its doors. As well, the in-joke was strengthened by the inclusion of numerous details on the engineering Master Situation Display (MSD), one of which I believe were one or more toilets (also included are a mouse, duck, and the Nomad probe). This notion was also reinforced when Zefram Cochrane commented to Geordi on the apparent lack of our favourite 'astronauts' in ever "peeing" in Star Trek: First Contact. Moreover, take a glance at the Enterprise-D blueprints and you'll see a plethora of lavatories. Besides: where could all that pee go? :) I hope this helps. E Pluribus Anthony 10:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, the blueprints do include heads, but I don't think there were any actually shown on the screen. Anyway, I think the passages as they are written on the page are fine and not contradictory. --WarpFlyght 15:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Didn't I say that? Great!  :) I was just trying to summarise relevant information about giving "head", while only passing judgements where needed. There you go!  :) E Pluribus Anthony 21:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I would assume that individual quarters would have their own bathrooms, and I am sure Ten Forward and other facilities would have them. If they're really deperate, maybe they could just use the transporter? ;-) Marky1981 21:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

A picture of the scematics would help to clarify the section Symmetric Chaos 21:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

While the need to handle human waste is a basic -- as a story plot, the idea is rather moot -- and un-interesting. KyuuA4 09:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mot the Barber

I'm wondering whether or not Mr. Mot, the ship's barber, was seen enough to qualify as a recurring character? AdmN 04:16, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I, for one, have no recollection of such a person.[[User:Nricardo|--Nelson Ricardo >>Talk<<]] 00:10, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
Blue fellow, right? I remember him from only one episode.
Acegikmo1 00:47, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[sigh...] I wish I had cable tv so that I could watch the episodes again.... The Star Trek Encyclopedia sites 3 episodes under Mr. Mot's entry: Data's Day, Ensign Ro, and Unification, Part 1; however, it doesn't make it clear if he appeared in all three, or if was only mentioned in one or two of them. I happen to remember an episode where he was only mentioned, Starship Mine. Captain Picard pretended to be Mr. Mot, (his lack of resemblence notwithstanding). :) func(talk) 01:13, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The Global Episode Opinion Survey lists him as appearing in two episodes, "Ensign Ro" and "Schisms" [1] See also A Google search of STARTREK.COM.
Acegikmo1 03:18, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The first appearance of a Bolian barber was in Data's Day. He didn't get a name in that episode, however. He was also played by a different actor than the later named Mr. Mot. func(talk) 03:30, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Another reacuring character is Nurse Alyssa Ogawa, played by Patti Yasutake. She was on Clues, Identity Crisis, The Host, Ethics, Cause and Effect, Imaginary Friend, The Inner Light, Realm of Fear, Suspicions, Parallels, Lower Decks, Genesis, and All Good Things... She also made appearances in Generations and First Contact. I think that Nurse Ogawa should be on this list.

Um... she is. Her link is red, unfortunately. func(talk) 22:46, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Another recurring character is Boothby, played by Ray Walston. Should this character be added? --abl 13:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Races

The list of races should probably be replaced with a link to List of Star Trek races. Also, some of the races currently listed on the TNG page are from other series (e.g. the Krenim).

Ahaha, yeah. The Krenim is my fault. Wrong page. :) Meant Voyager.
As for moving them, perhaps a table on list of Star Trek races marking them? Cburnett 23:29, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I started it in the place of the TOC. Please help change all the ? marks to Y or N. Cburnett 23:56, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there is no mention of Chief O'Brien (played by Irish actor, Colm Meaney)on these pages. Why is that? 21:01, August 19, 2006

[edit] Contiguous

The episodes Encounter at Farpoint and All Good Things... are so neatly bookends because, from Q's point of view, they were contiguous. Here are the relevant lines from the script of the later episode:

Picard: The last time I stood in this courtroom was seven years ago...
Q: "Seven years ago... " How little you mortals understand time. Must you be so linear, Jean-Luc?
Picard: You accused me of being the representative of a barbarous species...
Q: I believe my exact words were "a dangerous, savage, child-race."
Picard: But we demonstrated that mankind has become peaceful and benevolent. You agreed, and let us go on our way. (looking around) Why do I find myself back in this courtroom?
...
Q: The trial never ended, Captain. We never reached a verdict. But, now we have: you're guilty.

And from the second Q episode (by the reckoning of the Enterprise crew), Hide and Q:

Picard: So, you're taking on Riker this time. (smiles) Excellent! He'll defeat you just as I did!
Q: A wager on that, Captain? Your command of this starship against... ?
Picard: Against your staying out of humanity's path... forever! Done?

In the next Q episode, Q Who?, we find out that Q is willing to keep his word; that is why he brings Picard to a shuttle craft to talk to him. But if he did so, then how could the trial have been both the first and last episodes. It has to do with Q's statement about Picard understanding time too linearly. From Q's point of view, the first and last episodes were contiguous, or at least not having the other Q episodes between. Val42 03:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'll reword what I wrote in Talk:Replicator (Star Trek) just today. If it isn't explained sufficiently to *know* that they were contiguous, then it's an assumption to say they are contiguous. Q never says that they are contiguous, so you're inferring/assuming that from what he's said.
Having said that: aren't you also being a victim of thinking time as linear? That "Encounter at Farpoint" preceeded "All Good Things..." contiguously? That sounds extremely linear thinking to me. Cburnett 05:28, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I agree to your terms on the burden of proof for inclusion in Wikipedia. But I think that it was established in the Star Trek: Voyager episode Death Wish that the Q do experience duration linearly in some dimension of time (that isn't our dimension of time). They can also come and experience duration linearly in our dimension of time, as in Encounter at Farpoint when it hadn't occurred to Q to hold a trial until Picard mentioned it. The Q can come and go at any point in our time, as they wish, just like another spacial dimension to us. But the Q experience duration in some time differently than the Deep Space Nine wormhole aliens. I could make a compelling case for these summaries, but again, this wouldn't rise to the level of proof needed to put it in to a Wikipedia article.

I've well considered the linearity of Q's appearances. Time-travel stories are my favorites, so I like thinking non-linearly. (The most convoluted time-travel story that I've ever read is "—All You Zombies—". Yes, the title does include all of that punctuation.) We could arrange the Q appearances in order from his point of view, but there wouldn't be enough evidence to put it in a Wikipedia article. There are other web sites that we could link to for that. Val42 01:13, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Either you didn't understand me or I didn't explain it well enough (whatever it is is irrelevant). :) I don't see a problem stating your position as long as you don't write it as fact.
For example, we can state that one could infer that "Encounter at Farpoint" and "All Good Things..." happened contiguously because of the point you raise. That I don't have much problem with (it only becomes POV if we discount other explanations). But what we can't say is that it the two are contiguous from Q's point of view.
I'd have to think about it more, but I think WP:AWT is a good parallel: generally you avoid saying "some people think that Joe is the coolest" but "some people prefer dogs; others prefer cats" is ok. If it's abundantly clear that the two episodes are contiguous then rock on.
As an example of this last point: consider the ending of Nemesis. We see the ship Data is on explodes but I don't think we saw Data actually being destroyed (if so, them assume not for this point). After he fires he could have been transported out by a cloaked Romulan ship before the ship explodes (how many times have we seen the transporter pull someone out just as the ship blows up?). But it's overwhelming convincing that Data did indeed die: so we can write that Data is dead.
I don't want to sound like I'm the judge and jury on this. Anyone else have some to share? Cburnett 01:48, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I went back and read your edits from the 21st. I understand what you mean now. Val42 03:26, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Most Frequent Antagonist

" He appears the most frequently of any antagonist, appearing in ten episodes, compared with six episodes for the second-most frequently appearing antagonists, the Borg." This just doesn't seem right, what about the Romulans? While I don't know the numbers off hand, but I'm pretty sure that they were in more episodes then Q and the Borg (and do those six episodes count The Neutral Zone as a Borg episode?).--Jsonitsac 05:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Six Borg Episodes: Q Who, Best of Both Worlds I and II, I Borg, and Descent I and II.
Romulans: The Neutral Zone, Unification I and II, Redemption I and II, Data's Day (though barely), The Enemy, and The Mind's Eye. I might be missing some, but that gets the total over the Borg. The Ferengi also probably come pretty close: Menage a Troi, The Battle, The Price, The Last Outpost, Bloodlines, and Rascals.
So the statement as a whole should probably be fixed. -Thebdj 20:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being a nerd but I'm not really a fan of this sentence: "Three new recurring enemy races are introduced: the Ferengi, the Borg, and the Cardassians." But the Federation is at peace with the Cardassians in TNG (when we see them, they would've been at war during the first season strange the flagship doesn't participate in that). I think "antagonistic" would work better. Makgraf 07:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've always wondered about that Cardassian War. It seems to me that it wasn't a big drawn-out conflict like the Dominion War. I base this on the fact that Picard made some comments about how a Galor class ship was significantly inferior to the Enterprise. I think this war was more of a border conflict than a total war. Here are the reasons why: First, we've never heard anything about Starfleet marching on Cardassia Prime, or taking Cardassian systems. Second, we've seen that the Maquis rebellion was about the Federation-Cardassian border. It still seems that the Cardassians did some pretty brutal stuff during the war, since we have heard about massacres perpetrated by the Cardassians (Stelik III). As for the Enterprise not participating in the war, well, maybe that's because the war was winding down, and Starfleet realized the Romulans and Borg were a bigger and more immediate threat.--Image:jsonitsacsig.giftalk to me crimes against humanity00:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI for Sarek

There's not a page up for the episode "Sarek" ...yet, so I wasn't sure where to bring this to anyone's attention...BUT early next year Conlon Press is printing a book by Peter S. Beagle about the creation of this episode.... --JohnDBuell 21:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Guest Stars

I just tweaked the Guest Stars/Hawking reference. It said that he played himself; he did not, he played a holodeck simulation of himself in the 24th Century. He couldn't play himself unless we stipulate now that he exists as himself in three hundred odd years. samwaltz 23:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Now that is an impressively geeky distinction. I have to respect that. :) -BarkingDoc 01:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strange reflections on LaForge's visor

If you look at the picture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TNG_crew.jpg) in the "Main characters" section, then you may get the impression that LaForge is staring at you with sharp white and angular eyes. He is wearing his visor, but his eyes seem to shine through it in a somewhat deformed way. This is a strange reflection of light from his visor. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (01042006)

He looks sorta like Cyclops of the X-Men with a silver visor. Dreadlocke 07:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

This is, well, trivial, and it certainly marks me as a trekker, but the expanded acronym of "VISOR" actually did appear in the novelization of "Encounter At Farpoint," which was released close to the series premiere. So the acronym did exist even if it wasn't expanded on the show.

My actual question is: what did the author mean when they said this was the only syndicated series to receive the Emmy nomination for Best Drama? Dozens of syndicated series have recieved that nomination, most easily remembered being Law And Order in several different years. Was it possibly the first? I don't think this is possible. Hill Street Blues? L.A. Law? Miami Vice? BarkingDoc 00:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood "syndication." L&O, Miami Vice, etc are all in syndication as reruns. TNG is the only show to have been nominated which was strictly run through syndication. ie: NBC shows L&O's new episodes, and then syndicates them to other networks (sometimes sister networks, or networks that will pay good money for them). TNG was sold to networks as it was being produced. It had no network backing it. Lordwow 02:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pulowski

Why isn't Dr. Kate Pulowski(sp.?) in the list with the regualr cast members? She was in more episodes than Tasha Yar. 71.193.71.9 18:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Diana Muldaur chose not to be listed as a member of the regular cast, so didn't appear in the opening sequence, for instance. She was listed as a guest star for the whole year she appeared in the series. It wouldn't be accurate to describe her as a member of the regular cast. However, I see the sidebar does list her as a star; is this a matter of controversy, or shall I remove her? (There are any number of recurring guest stars who would also merit being put there - John de Lancie springs to mind). Vashti 03:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apperances of Riker

Riker is written to have appeared in all of the episodes, but to my knowledge he does not appear in Birthright, part II. Am I wrong? I tried to modify the trivia enter but my change has been reverted. Gbnogkfs 27 August 2006, 23:23 (UT)

Appears about 14 minutes into the episode. Verified by my full set of DVDs. Thebdj 01:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
right. Gbnogkfs 28 August 2006, 02:10 (UT)

[edit] Michelle Forbes as Dara

Just noticed the add of the "Dara" character Michelle Forbes (Ensign Ro) played in a single season 4 episode. I have a suspicion this doesn't belong, because the list is a list of recurring characters, not recurring actors. Still, this seems like a relevant tidbit. Should it be removed? Should the list be renamed to recurring actors? Should it be added as some kind of footnote? —Trevyn 06:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I made something up that made sense to me. Feel free to alter/remove it if you all prefer. —Trevyn 18:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dwight Schultz not in Season 5

I made the change that Dwight Schultz as Lieutenant Reginald Barclay, engineer, is not in TNG: Season 5. I think I am right. (Simonapro 08:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC))

You are not right, at least according to Dwight Schultz's IMDB profile, which says he appeared as Barclay in one episode each in the years 1990-1994, which would be Seasons 3-7 inclusive. MSJapan 03:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, he did, but TNG seasons spanned from the fall of one year to the spring of the next, i.e. Season 3 was from 1989-1990. His 1992 and 1993 appearances were both in Season 6: [2] [3] -- SmokeDetector47( TALK ) 04:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems a little unnecessary to me to specify exactly which seasons he appeared in regardless. To me "Seasons 3-7" just means that he recurred between 3 and 7. It doesn't specify how many times, or exactly when. Maybe it's just the way they're listed (I'd prefer "3, 4, 6, 7" or something). In fact, the whole section is a bit messy right now. For instance, Michelle Forbes' other character shouldn't even be in the table. It's recurring characters, not actors... I'll leave the Barclay entry alone, but I'm doing a little re-working of the table. Majel Barrett's work as the computer voice is detailed below, and doesn't need to be in the table (I don't consider the computer a "recurring character"). Furthermore, the table should probably be consistent with the main character one above it, i.e. character name first. The biographical snippets were pretty arbitrary, too, and since each character has their own page, I removed them for now. If they're added back, let's at least make them a little more readable and consistent, maybe in a separate table column, or a little shorter or something. -- Fru1tbat 12:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Well if Barclay is not in Season 5, and he does not appear to be in Season 5 from what I can tell, then Season 5 should not be included in the list, as other characters have excluded Seasons in their profile, why should Barclay be any different? Until someone can say which episode Barclay is in in Season 5, my position remains the same. So what episode is he in in Season 5?(Simonapro 05:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC))
He wasn't in any episode in season 5. My point was just that "3-7" can mean "between 3 and 7" as well. Since the convention seems to be to list the seasons the character appeared in explicitly, though, I don't really have a problem leaving the Barclay entry the way it is. -- Fru1tbat 11:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Good. That is all that matters. Obviously "3-7" would include "5" which was wrong. Barclay wasn't in Season 5 and that is all that matters here. (Simonapro 18:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] One note

There was a bathroom shown on TOS, according to a few sources. I just thought I should put that detail in, so you could all marvel at my great knowledge of such profundities. :-) See you.

--Sm8900 19:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a toilet seat that slides out in a shuttle craft in the move Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country. BTW, this is TNG not TOS. (Simonapro 06:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Star Trek/Robotech trivia citation needed

I added a request for a citation to this trivia. A search at the United States Patent and Trademark Office reveals that Harmony Gold (Robotech's producer) never filed for a trademark for Robotech: The New Generation, past or present. If no citation is found, this entry will be removed.1-54-24 17:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Remark About The Sexist Introduction

I am suggesting we change this to read "-- for political correctness --", remove the inline comment entirely, or cite the previous opening narrator's quotation contrasted with the new one; allowing the reader to make the judgment as to why or what the comments changes are. In good faith, we should not impute our interpretations less this not be an unbiased source. When the show was created I am quite sure the intention wasn't to be derogatory to anyone; the now obsolete use of the term "man" to describe human beings is a clear sign of the original series age and creation in time. There are many great shows, like "Cosmos", whom are not trying to insult women but have the same obsolete usage. I hope we can all see eye to eye on this. BlackWolf 09:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is best to remove the interpretation entirely; unless someone has a cite, commenting on their reasoning is speculation. IMO, "political correctness" is a pretty loaded term, at least as POV "remove sexist language" was. I will remove the remark, which it sounds like you're OK with. -- Coneslayer 15:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
You both have a point - I should have said "gender-specific" rather than sexist. I'm going to do a little research on this - I am reasonably sure I've seen refs for this point as discussed by the creators of TNG (I know I have talked about it with some TNG writers and creative team, but that's not quotable stuff). I'll see what I can find and if it is quotable and appropriate, I'll make a suitable edit. Sorry -I actually was neither trying to denigrate TOS and its creators nor post POV text - I guess I've seen this so many times that it seemed apparent and obvious. Tvoz 22:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The gender neutral w/ citation is excellent. BlackWolf 17:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I think it is much better than what I had posted originally. Tvoz 07:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Trekkie v. Trekker

Is this section appropriate within the discussion of TNG? This seems more like an issue for the main Star Trek page rather than this specific series. I would suggest a move immediately. Pseudolus42 05:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] homosexuality section changes

There has been text added that has been reverted several times - I did so just now, for these reasons:

  • camp does not equal gay - this is POV
  • the sexual orientation of any cast member has absolutely nothing to do with what this section is addressing, which is whether a vision of the future should include homosexual characters - this is ridiculous
  • including the uniforms in this section? - this is absurd.

I don't know if this edit is meant to be serious, or if it's vandalism, but it has been reverted a few times and I posted a note on the talk page of the IP address that posted it, asking that the editor stop reverting it, and instead come here to discuss if there is something to say. Tvoz | talk 03:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure why my additions regarding useof camp in ST:TNG have been removed. the first editor claimed to have removed them thinking I was just testing, the second claimed to be reinstating something else- only the third says that he thinks they're unhelpful. Couldn't the first two editors have been honest about their reasons for removal in the first place? As for the edits in question - is there any doubt that Geordi's performance and other elements of ST:TNG are camp? And I do say this as someone who enjoys TNG and Le Var Burton's performance in it.

OK - Just seen Tvoz's reasoning above. First, camp does not equal gay - hence it was referred to as camp as opposed to gay or homosexual. Second, cast members' orientation was not mentioned,nor is it relevant, third; William Theiss's costumes are very colourful, surely an element of camp in both the original series as well as TNG.
First - actually I was the 2nd and 3rd comment on your page, posted at the same time - the 2nd was the required vandalism warning, but I recognized that you might not have been deliberately vandalizing, so I invited you to come here to talk about it. I understand that camp is not gay - that is what I said - so why include that in the section about complaints by homosexual viewers? Seems to me you were the one making that link and it seems inappropriate to me. As for Levar Burton - I couldn't tell what you were saying and thought you were implying that the actor is gay which would be irrelevant. If you were not, then what are you talking about when you mention his performance as Geordi? That it was a "gay" performance? If camp, then again, camp is not gay. The uniforms are the uniforms, and I don't see then as being particularly camp, but again - what does this have to do with the question raised in the supposed controversy (which frankly I'd like to see some citation for, as I don't think it is common knowledge that the gay community had this objection)? The section is suggesting that gay fans were upset that the vision of the future did not include gay people - I don't see how your edit has any relevance. Maybe others see it differently, but I am only one of the people who reverted it, so I'd like to hear. Thanks for coming by and discussing it, though. Tvoz | talk 04:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't say I've ever considered Burton's performance to be remotely camp, or Geordi to be a camp character. Regardless, however, this appears to be one editor's opinion and should not be included in the article without a citation. Vashti 11:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
As one of the editors mentioned above, I didn't just claim to be reinstating content. I in fact did (when you reverted the previous deletion, you also deleted several intermediate edits, which I fixed), and at the same time deleted the line in question (see diff here). My full edit summary was: "(rv: restored accidentally deleted legitimate content (stardates), remove original commentary)", and the latter explains the deletion. I not only never saw Burton's performance or the uniforms as camp elements, but I've never even heard anyone else make the same claims. Since they were unsourced, they appeared to me to be original commentary. --Fru1tbat 04:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reminder and refresher

As this subject is still obviously in dispute as it has been reverted and re-reverted several times...please discuss any further opinions and thoughts on the topic before making any further modifications...we do not want any edit wars, and please remember the Three-revert rule.Blipadouzi 15:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the "original research" from the in question text; the rest is factual and aids in giving a more complete encyclopedic article. Nicht Nein! 16:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] G4 section

Wikipedia content decisions don't really run on the principle of stare decesis, so yes, let's get rid of it. And the one at Star Trek: The Original Series as well. Morwen - Talk 15:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If it were just about the series being shown as-is on a network, that might not warrant any more than a single sentence, but in this case, it relates to the episodes being shown with additional, auxiliary content added on-screen, and there should certainly be some mention of that in the article. So I would say that the G4 section should be kept. For that matter, I think there should be some mention of the extra interviews and such that were shown in the first run of TOS on the Sci-Fi Channel in its article, at least a paragraph or two. --ΨΦorg 17:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/a/Talk%7EStar_Trek%7E_The_Next_Generation_2b6e.html"