Talk:Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film 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.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
No
This article has been rated as No-importance on the priority scale.
Star Trek Portal
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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article. Feel free to add your name to the participants list and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.


Contents

[edit] Typo or Math Error?

Under trivia, there's remarks about how they changed the date of the Eugenics Wars in TNG. Unless I'm misunderstanding the wording, there's either a mistake or a math error in this statement: "The date was sent forward by one hundred years, taking Kahn as a creation from 1996 to 2196." (2196 - 1996 = 200) Anyone know for sure whether if it was changed to 100 years later and 2096, or 200 years later and 2196? Theredcomet2000 10:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoever wrote that didn't realize that the 2100s is the 22nd century, not the 21st (the 2000s). 2196 is the end of the 22nd century where TOS may have early on popularly been thought to start. Now 2096 to 2196 (or perhaps 2211 if TWOK takes place 15 years after Space Seed) would make Khan's statement "200 years ago, I was a prince!" make more sense chronologically.Mr. ATOZ 18:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Has the article text been fixed? If so please {{Resolved}} this thread to save other editors the time (and possible error-reintroduction) of messing with it.  :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Craig Stuart Hamilton?

Resolved. Has not appeared in article for over 3 years.

Removed the text about Craig Stuart Hamilton as unsubstantiated - can't find anything on Craig Stuart Hamilton with relation to Star Trek. Dysprosia 08:56, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] khaan.com link?

Resolved. It is in the "In popular culture" section

Would it be appropriate to add a link to Khaaan!?

[edit] Sequel to ST: I

Does anyone know the source of this time travel to kill JFK storyline. I'm not discounting it, I just have never heard of it before. I'm curious about it because the very same idea was used in Red Dwarf's 7th season. MarnetteD | Talk 07:36, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Found it. The 1995 book about the Star Trek movies states that in an interview in an edition of Starlog circa mid 1980's, that this storyline was discussed but abandoned. I am glad that they left it to those misfits from the mining ship Red Dwarf to deal with this interference with the timelines.MarnetteD | Talk 23:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page Length

This article seems to be very long compared to other movie articles. By comparison, it is nearly twice as long as the page on Moby Dick. Maybe the plot summary could be a little shorter? [unsigned]

Agreed. I think the cast list is too long too. I would cut it off after Ike Eisenmann. Over half the remaining credits are uncredited and/or aren't notable enough to have a wikipedia article on them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.102.233 (talk) 05:34, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kirk's rank?

What was Kirk's rank, (from ST: II to near end of IV), was it Rear Admiral or Vice Admiral. In ST:TMP, I've listed his rank as Rear Admiral (before V'ger mission), and I've listed his rank in this & the ST: III & IV articles as Vice Admiral. Am I correct? GoodDay 22:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It was in fact Rear Admiral. See this discussion on Memory Alpha on the difference between vice admiral and rear admiral insignia. Kirk was a Rear Admiral and also Chief of Starfleet Operations. Yes I am a huge ST geek but not that big of one; kudos to the memory alpha. -Kasreyn 09:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I know of the speculation on Kirk's rank in regards insignia, but there is absolutely no cannon word of Kirk's rank at the time of Wrath Of Khan. Even on the offical Star Trek bio page he is just listed as Admiral. Isn't there a way to reflect this uncertainty in the article? Judesalmon 23:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know Kirk's rank in Wrath of Khan is not specifically stated in the novelization (except as Admiral, which doesn't mean he can't be a Vice or Rear Admiral; Admiral is an acceptable shorthand). However, in the discussion I linked to above, from memoryalpha, which is like a wikipedia devoted to ST and edited by huge ST geeks, they came to the conclusion he was a Rear Admiral by examining the rank markings he is seen wearing in the movies. They do appear to be Rear Admiral markings. -Kasreyn 16:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, that's speculation, which is why I'd rather it wasn't given as fact in the article. Also, after close inspection of the movie yesterday, when Kirk returns from the Genesis cave to Eneterprise the jacket he changes into appears to have a Rear Admiral's insignia, but a Commodore's sleeve stripe. So I feel that going by fan speculation is pointless as 1) it's not cannon and 2) they might be concluding the wrong thing. Judesalmon 19:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plot Holes?

This is one of my favorite movies of all time, and I am a Trek fan, though not as big as I once was. However, I always wondered... Why did Reliant have to go trudging through the known galxy to look for a suitable planet? Why couldn't they just use Regula? Spock called it a "great rock in space." Dr. Marcus said that there shouldn't be "so much as a microbe", so it seems like the perfect candidate right there. This was never explained in the movie, and I don't recall if the novel had anything to say about this. BTW, I thought the novel was FAR FAR weaker than the movie. Also, I thought Genesis was supposed to turn an EXISTING dead planet into a life sustaining one, so how where did the Genesis planet and it's sun come from? Genesis can make whole solar systems? If so, once again, why send Reliant looking everywhere for a planet, if Genesis could just make it's own?211.114.56.153 05:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh that. It consumed the entire Mutarra nebula to do it. I suspect that it was Khan's doing, charging it with the entire energy supply of the Reliant. It doesn't look like it was ever intended to have that much.
This is all based on the assumption that the Mutara Nebula is a stellar nursery. It could well have been the dust cloud surrounding a young star that had not yet coalesced into planets. The Genesis device would have sped that action up.
My understanding of the Reliant's quest is that the Federation was very concerned about violating the Prime Directive by using the Genesis Device on any planet where life might potentially develop sentience. My understanding, from the novelization which admittedly isn't "canon", is that they required a planet with certain building blocks in its makeup, a certain type and strength of solar radiation, and most importantly, no life forms that could conceivably give rise to sentience - single-celled evolutionary dead ends at best. As has been seen, the fictional universe of ST is chockablock with life, which led to major headaches for Terrel and crew - which is why they had such high hopes for the Alpha Ceti planets. Kasreyn 05:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, so Khan was intending to make his own solar system, and he figured out how to do it using technology he was never exposed to, doing what the devices own creators couldn't? [unsigned]
The second one sounds more plausable, but the plantet in that video of the genesis effect sure looked a lot like Regulas.211.114.56.153 06:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, remember that Khan wasn't just a musclebound meathead. According to his backstory, he was genetically engineered for both superb physical fitness as well as superhuman intelligence, probably on Spock's level or so. I doubt he could redo all of Marcus et al's research in mere days, but he did have all the data from Regulus's computers to read, and in Space Seed he read all the computer's data files on the Enterprise in mere days in order to learn how to take over the ship. He only really wanted Genesis as bait to lure Kirk to him, anyway. But while he waited for Kirk, I'm sure he was able to figure out a few basics of how it worked. Surely torturing Terrel and Chekov wouldn't have been enough to stave off boredom.  :P Kasreyn 06:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I think Khan's only intention when he started the Genesis device was to destroy Kirk, since he knew Kirk couldn't escape the blast (which he did manage to do). As for them not using Regulus, I don't think the the whole planet was suitable to be Genesized(?), but maybe just the part that they did the experiments on. Chuck(척뉴넘) 07:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Regula couldn't have been in con(s)ideration for Genesis, because it already had life on it (The Genesis Cave). As far as where the planet came from: it seems pretty logical. The Genesis Planet was the transformed Regula II. Also, on a side note, it would have been sooooo much easier to blame the instability of The Genesis Planet on Regula already having the Genesis Cave and not Protomater. My two slips. Willie 08:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with with Genesis being created from a starship inside of a Nebula. The planet did end up destroying itself, suggesting it was unstable. Despite David saying in Star Trek III that he took a few shortcuts in the matrix of the genesis project, its still wise to consider the planet was unstable due to being created incorrectly.Boxyno1 16:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

On another plot hole: I disagree that the scene where Kirk and Scotty keep the engines off due to radiation is a serious lapse in Judgement. Kirk tried to radio down to engineering, once it became clear that not having warp engines was a death sentence, but no one responded. At this point, Spock went down to save the day... Venknat 21:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that because scotty was out cold they should have excepted death? BTW, scotty was conscious enough to get up and yell at spock to get out. The entire crew had a "die together" additude. Some one should have been in there by some ones order according the the TNG (and general US military) proceedure. This was a inconsistant and strange way to get spock dead for the sake of getting him dead. Dramatically neccesarry. Strategically rediculous.--Mark 2000 01:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Scotty was out cold while McCoy tended to him. The rest of the staff were trainees, and chances are they didn't know how to fix a warp drive that was this badly damaged. It had already been established in ST:TMP that Spock did know, however. John, 1:24, 09 September 2006

The speculation that McCoy should have been able to heal Preston is unfounded. In later series, we see people die in sickbay soon after being conscious, so there is no reason to think that anyone able to talk will survive their current injuries. John, 9:47, 13 September 2006

I disagree that Kirk screaming out KHAAAAAAN! is an inconsistency due to them being rescued in the next couple scenes. Kirk is pissed that Khan was able to get away with the Genesis device, Khan didn't fall for Kirk taunting him to duke it out mano-a-mano, that Checkov may possibly have permanent brain damage, and that a commanding officer (Terrell) incinerated himself with a phaser. I think that's valid enough to be angry. I suggest removing it.--Cnadolski 22:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree - in addition, in order for the deception to work, Khan had to believe that Kirk et al were stranded. The scream makes perfect sense, as Kirk needed to keep up the charade. The comment about the supply ship also makes no sense, as they were not on the station, but inside the asteroid - supply ships are not likely to even know about the hollowed-out interior of the asteroid. I suggest removing the whole bit. 72.208.25.18 21:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Nerd Fodder?'

Please discuss removal of items before doing so. There should be a good reason to do so, not that it "nerd fodder" or some other thing. Anything about Star Trek is nerd fluff, so a better reason for removal is necessary.--Mark 2000 02:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, "nerd fodder" is a term that will now, and forever be part of my lexicon. I have some nerd fodder I wish to discuss.

Some of the "Problems and Inconsistancies" are not, in my opinion. True, the audience sometimes asks questions about what they see on screen - but that the movie does not answer those questions is not a problem. It's only a problem if no answer seems to exist. In my opinion; these do not qualify:

  1. Ceti Alpha V being mistaken as Ceti Alpha VI; there would be remains of Ceti Alpha VI, and Khan already said "the shock shifted the orbit of this planet". I removed a comment saying that an outer planet's explosion would drive an inner planet further in, because that's only true if the inner planet was between the sun and the outer planet at the time of the explosion. If it were at right angles, or some degree of opposition, the "inner planet" would actually be moved *outward*. I think the dialogue addressed the question as much as it could without seriously slowing down the narrative (I'm not sure how much Khan should be explaining about Newtonian physics at a stellar level, anyway) - so I propose this "problem" be removed.
  2. "McCoy wasn't able to heal his injuries using 23rd Century medical technology." I don't see what the audience was told about Preston's injuries, or 23rd century medical technology that makes this kind of conclusion in any way reasonable. He was conscious and talking, so McCoy should have been able to heal him? I don't see the logic.
  3. Kirk shouldn't have screamed at Khan since Kirk had other tricks up his sleeve; I added in my "proposed explanation". This isn't a problem or an inconsistancy; this is people having different opinions about how a character should have reacted.
  4. The genesis torpedo forming a solar system was a "continuity break"; it was protrayed as a terraforming device, yes. It was not "merely" a terraforming device. There was no statement limiting what it was able to do; in fact the characters spent some time talking about what might happen if it was used *other* than what was intended (it was a different scenario, of course). The torpedo was not meant to be blown up in a ship, in a nebula. Yes, how lucky the planet was of a right size and shape to be "M" class, but then the genesis technology was towards "creating life." I don't think this is a "continuity break" in any way, shape, or form.

Anyway, that's my nerd fodder; opinions welcome. Otter Escaping North 13:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"I added in my "proposed explanation", and I reverted it belatedly as unbelievely WP:NOR-violative unencyclopedic personal speculation. Not to put too fine a point on it. :-) In firm agreement with the Genesis device speculation removal (and I removed more of it; the question posed, "so how did it create the star", is really obvious (see edit summary for the answer). I remain concerned about the speculation about the scanner tech and Ceti Alphas V and VI. As phrased now, I think it is...okay, but if anything were deleted further, I'd delete that first. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"The next movie explains the failure of the Genesis planet is due to a use of a controversial substance in the Genesis Device, when a more logical explanation would be that the terraforming device was not designed to explode inside the armored hull of a warship thus using the ship and the surrounding nebula as raw materials instead of a lifeless planet." I'd like to point out that there is an advantage for Star Trek chronology by having the plot indicate that the Genesis device is unstable do to a controversial substance. This explains well why the experiment was not simply repeated with a new prototype on an intended target. I think that the original point is complete speculation and should be removed. -Alex 17:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ugh, Phyell

The old picture was much better. Is this really necessary? It's too small to see any of the figures well enough to make them out. In the older one, you could at least make out Khan and maybe Kirk. (Remember, not everyone has very sharp eyes) This one is very muddled-looking at such a small image size. It was intended to be viewed as a full-size poster, and it really doesn't come off well at postage-stamp size. I say we should go back to the old image. Kasreyn 22:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sequence problems in this article

Resolved. Edit gets rid of the problem, and has survived revision for many months.

In the movie, the "Mother, he killed everyone we left behind!" "Is that David?" business happens well before Kirk's "KHAAAANNN!!!" scream. In this article it takes place after.

Okay, I changed the order around in the article as proposed. In addition, I removed the comment that said the second "KHAN!" scream that Kirk makes is actually an echo. I don't think it can be determined with certainty whether it was an echo or an actual scream, so now the speculation is not mentioned in the article at all. CALQL8 02:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I always had the feeling it was an echo, even hearing it in the theater. CFLeon 00:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
It's just a theatrical device. You hear him say it, then we cut to space and you hear it as an echo, and probably (I would be money on it) and inside joke w/r/t Alien ("In space, no one can hear you scream.") It can't be taken literally, since there is no sound in space, nor even as a delay in reception between Kirk saying it and Khan hearing it, since we know that ST's subspace communication happens FTL. Agree with the article not even mentioning it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
And yes, it was an echo effect, and echoed twice; I just now watched it again. It goes "Khaaan!...Khaaan!...Khaaan!". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Issue with wording on statement

Resolved. Rewrite was installed.

While Wrath of Khan had primarily human characters the statement "and there were no good alien roles either." is more or less opinion and conjecture. What ways do you think should it be rewritten as? I was thinking of having it written as

  • Mark Lenard, who portrayed the Klingon captain in the first film, and Sarek in three of the four following films, wanted to appear in this one too. However the character Sarek was not used in this film, nor were there many alien roles either. --anon.
I wrote it that way because I read/heard the story that way. Lenard would've played an alien in TWOK if it had been more than just as an "extra." That said, I have no problem with your suggested rewrite. Considering the distinct lack of aliens in the movie, it's just as accurate. Fred8615 14:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ricardo Montalban's chest

No mention of the debate over Montalban's chest: real or breatsplate. Is this something worth mentioning? [1] Alexw 16:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Article now mentions this, but it needs to be sourced. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
There's no doubt it was real, it doesn't look fake and the DVD commentary confirms what is blindingly obvious. How much debate was there? Its something I've rarely seen, even on Star Trek messageboards Alastairward 08:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alley's departure

I removed an unsourced statement saying that Alley departed because she didn't want to be typecast. That's the first I've ever heard of that. I had always heard it was the salary demands that kept her out of STIII. I have left that in, as it is referenced from Shatner's book, but if someone can provide a source to indicate that fear of typecasting was another reason why she left the role, please feel free to put it back (with citation). 23skidoo 14:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major overhaul

Did a major overhaul to refactor all the trivia, better sectionalize the article and give it some logical flow with regard to production, to use more sensible heading names, and to remove gobs of utterly blatant WP:OR. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expectations and Critical Reception

It says "in Star Trek II, unlike most of the other Trek films, the universe is a dark and scary place full of dangerous people." I think that's questionable. All of the Trek films had "dangerous people", and the original show made the universe out to be a much scarier place, full of space amoebae, doomsday machines, and malevolent godlike aliens. The bit about "Wrath of Khan" being influenced by "Alien" is far-fetched as well.Pooneil 02:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah this smacks of original research to me and I have to say that the parallels between the two seem very tenuous to me. Can we remove it? AulaTPN 09:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree too, that "Alien" comparison was odd and really didn't seem to fit. 216.90.56.122 21:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Khan's Legs

In the section on Khan and Montalban the last line states "And oddly, Montalban is never seen from the waist down in the film." which is patently untrue. There are numerous occasions when all of Khan is visible - for instance when he is sitting in Reliant's command chair in the scenes where they i) chase the Enterprise to Regula One ii) chase the Enterprise into the Mutara Nebula. Can we remove this line? AulaTPN 09:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

Much of the information in "Trivia" is already mentioned earlier in the article... a very awkward read, thus... Ritto Revolto 06:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I was going to add that Khan's last words were actually those of Ahab in Moby Dick (reflecting the above comment about being longer than Moby Dick); The quote is: "Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering whale; to the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee. Sink all coffins and all hearses to one common pool! and since neither can be mine, let me then tow to pieces, while still chasing thee, though tied to thee, thou damned whale! Thus, I give up the spear!" (http://www.americanliterature.com/Melville/MobyDickorTheWhale/136.html), though STWOK uses "to the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee." but was too scared. Can someone else do it?

[edit] Envolvement of PIXAR(CGI)

In the section "Popular Culture", is says Pixar contibuted to the Genesis sequcnce (CGI) and the movie TRON. To my knowledge, Pixar never had anything to do with TRON. Can I remove that line? Vmedici 20:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is just horrible and compares poorly to articles on Star Trek episodes, which are so much better in comparison. Its a shame that it happens on the 25th anniversary of the film, that the article remains so poor. I can remember Industrial Light and Magic mentioned as the company that did most of the work on the film Alastairward 08:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article is a mess

This article is a mess! The plot summary is way too long and many of the trivia and production notes are repeated in the article. 216.90.56.122 21:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Best TOS Movie?

When people compare the Star Trek movies this one always seems to be be thought to be the best. Could anyone find any info on this? --Billiot 16:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In-Universe?

I'm not seeing this in-universe stuff. Is this one of those templates that people forgot to get rid of when they edited the article? (See also "original research"?). Doogie2K (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dangerous Liaisons

This article makes the claim that the quote "'revenge is a dish that is best served cold?' It is really from the 18th-century novel Les Liaisons dangereuses (Dangerous Liaisons), written by Pierre Choderlos de Laclos." Whereas the Wikipedia article "List of snowclones" counterclaims that "it [the quote] does not occur there [Dangerous Liaisons]." Which article is correct? 69.81.52.239 05:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification request

Appreciate if someone in the know could:

  1. In this article, interwiki link the first occurrence of 'USS Enterprise' to the proper Enterprise page.
  2. Review this statement on the page John F. Kennedy:
An early story for the film Star Trek II featured the crew of the USS Enterprise going back in time to save President Kennedy.
That 'fact' seems unlikely given this article's statement:
Gene Roddenberry wrote his own sequel, involving a plot he had touted before in which the crew of the Enterprise travel back through time to assassinate John F. Kennedy

Any clarification of the above would be appreciated. Maralia 13:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Themes

I have removed the themes section again - it reads like a personal essay and is entirely unsourced (and has been tagged as such since sept). The onus for sourcing is not on the person removing but those who wish to include material - if people can find sources then it can be re-added, otherwise it is Original Research and does not belong here. --Fredrick day (talk) 13:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of abbreviations

I honestly don't understand the removal of the abbreviations, "ST2:TWOK" and "TWOK", from the Lead. This pattern is followed in other five orignal ST movies (I, III-VI), and doesn't seem to have been a problem there. I did remove the redundant long titles "Star Trek II" and "The Wrath of Khan", as these are obvious, and for consistency, as only the abbreviations are given on the other pages. What gives? - BillCJ (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I didn't realize that the other Star Trek movie articles had those ridiculous abbreviations that nobody uses as well. Every time I have ever heard this movie referred to, it is by the words "Star Trek 2" or "The Wrath of Khan". Have you ever heard someone refer to this movie as "TWOK" or even "ST2:TWOK"? Nobody would ever call it that because the only place anyone would have any idea what you're talking about is at a Star Trek convention. Hell, it takes more time to actually say out loud "ST2:TWOK" than "The Wrath of Khan", which totally defeats the purpose of an abbreviation. Then you'd have to explain what ST2:TWOK was because it is not intuitive and nobody would know.
Have you seriously ever heard anyone refer to the other movies as TMP, TSFS, TVH, TFF, or TUC? That is the most ambiguous way you could possibly use to refer to those movies. People typically refer to them as the shortened name of the movie without the "Star Trek" prefix, i.e. "The Search for Spock", "The Voyage Home", "The Undiscovered Country" etc since those are specific enough that by "The Undiscovered Country" or "The Search for Spock" someone would most likely know exactly which motion picture you're referring to. The original film, I assume, would most often referred to as "Star Trek: The Movie" to differentiate it from the TV series, not as just "The Motion Picture" because, provided you were not at a Star Trek convention, the next thing you would hear is "which motion picture?" The two alternate references you removed, "Star Trek 2" and "The Wrath on Khan" are realistically the only ones that should be there. -Mike Payne (T • C) 01:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen it in writing many times, and it's used on the WP ST talk pages. Nothing wrong with having a simple explanation available just in case. - BillCJ (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's poor form to make like changes to other articles while the matter is still under discussion. You did realize it's still under discussion, right? Anyway, I'm not going to revert-war with you, it'll only get us both blocked. I'll give you some time to either grow up or move on, or perhaps someone else will take up the issue. - BillCJ (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction template

The contradiction is the origin of "Revenge is a dish best served cold". This article attributes the quote to Les Liaisons dangereuses but that article denies it. Someone's complaint last year above at #Dangerous Liaisons evidently hasn't been enough to get the contradiction resolved. If nobody knows the answer, we should just delete the factoid. Art LaPella (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

See also Talk:Les Liaisons dangereuses#"Revenge is a dish best served cold". Art LaPella (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)