This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Star Trek: Discovery season 2 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Star Trek: Discovery season 2 has been listed as one of the
Media and drama good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: June 16, 2020. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Acceptable poster? -- Alex TW 10:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
@ Adamstom.97: Upon reverting a reorganization of the content, this edit comment stated:
I believe it is too early to split the information up like that, especially the writing section, plus development should be in chronological order so it can show progression. The lead is consistent with the rest of the topic and follows a standard style, so the format change is unnecessary
I agree that each section needs to maintain chronological order to show progression, just as you say. And for precisely that reason, the information needs to be reorganized under narrower subsection headers, as the reverted edits did.
As it stands, the paragraphs are excessively long (see WP:PARAGRAPH), and each one includes statements on multiple topics such as:
The article presently maintains chronological order under section headings that are too broad. The result is that each paragraph reads like a list of loosely-related events. Lumping them all together chronologically only impedes the reader's understanding, because each topic gets briefly addressed and quickly abandoned until the middle of the next paragraph.
I don't think it's ever "too early to split" disorganized WP:PARAGRAPHs of that kind, so that each paragraph and subsection can successfully convey information on a single topic, and chronological order is maintained under each section header. That's what my edits attempted to do. If you think it's too early, then at least we're in agreement that it's ultimately going to be necessary. Why not now? Lwarrenwiki ( talk) 18:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Just watched the two mini-episodes, the second being co-written by well-known author Michael Chabon. I'm not sure how to the fit them into the chronology; on my cable TV page, they appear as episodes 1.1 and 2.1.
Before I forget, plot summaries, I'll look around for titles & other credits:
1.1 A creature which can become invisible escapes from a piece of space debris brought aboard Discovery's loading bay. It has an encounter with Tilly in the otherwise-deserted cafeteria, causing the food processors to malfunction and fling food everywhere. It turns out to be a female humanoid. Tilly strikes up a relationship and their conversation continues in her quarters; they discover that they have several things in common. The creature reveals that she has discovered a way to synthesize dilithium, and that her parents and brother have died. Tilly decides to use the transporter to send her home; as she is departing, the creature reveals that her father was the king of her homeland, and with his death, she is now the queen.
1.2 An escape pod is hurtling through space carrying a single near-death occupant. Discovery brings it aboard with tractor beams. Its inhabitant, later revealed to be a soldier, finds that Discovery is empty and has been stationary for a thousand years, following orders to await the return of the crew. In the meantime, the ship's computer has evolved itself and attained intelligence and sentience. The lone soldier and the computer strike up a relationship and end up re-enacting a scene from classic dance movie Funny Face, with the computer taking the role played by Audrey Hepburn. In the end, the computer decides to send the lone soldier home on the ship's last remaining shuttle, which the computer has christened Funny Face; they exchange heartfelt farewells. Tim Bray ( talk) 06:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I notice that we have summaries for the first four episodes.
But not for Saints of Imperfection, or The Sounds of Thunder: the two most recently broadcast episodes.
Despite the fact the release date, writers and directors sections have been filled in.
Is it possible to correct that?
Cuddy2977 ( talk) 08:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Most of the characters in this show have a military rank. However, these ranks are sometimes ignored in the summaries. I'd like to establish a style whereby, on first reference, we refer to characters using their full ranks and their full names with a link to that character's Wikipedia page if one exists. Then, on second reference, we should use the shortest names possible without ranks or a link reference. To prevent reader confusion, this style should be applied for each summary rather than the entire page.
Here's how it would look in practice: Commander Michael Burnham sought the advice of her close friend, Commander Saru, on how to negotiate with the Ba'ul. Saru said that would be impossible because the Ba'ul are amoral. Note that Saru doesn't have a WP link because no WP page exists on him.
Please give me your opinions. Lechonero ( talk) 23:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
User 193.114.117.128 In the reffered links last episode is mentioned as “Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2”. http://trekcore.com/blog/2019/04/new-photos-star-trek-discovery-season-finale-such-sweet-sorrow-part-2/ https://trekmovie.com/2019/04/13/star-trek-discovery-co-showrunner-says-season-2-finale-will-provide-answers-to-the-shows-mysteries/
So, there is two episodes (part 1&2) Lado85 ( talk) 09:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
So why is episode 13 called "Such Sweet Sorrow" and episode 14 is called "Such Sweet Sorrow Part 2?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.84.43.10 ( talk) 12:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Could I understand, please, why does not Sara Mitich appear in recurrent or even notable characters? According to IMDB, she played in 7 episodes this season. Thank you. IKhitron ( talk) 13:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't like how this is phrased at all. It states that it is a fact when it has been debunked that it was ever an actual legal requirement. I think it needs to be rephrased to state plainly that the designers were mistaken in their understanding and it was not a legal requirement. oknazevad ( talk) 21:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
John Eaves and Scott Schneider, designers of the starships for the series, redesigned the USS Enterprise for Star Trek: Discovery. They claimed that they were required to make it 25 percent different from Matt Jefferies' original design due to legal concerns regarding the ownership of different Star Trek elements. CBS later explained that they were free to reuse Jefferies' design in Star Trek: Discovery, but design changes were made for the series to take advantage of modern visual effects.Thoughts? - adamstom97 ( talk) 05:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Star Trek: Discovery season 2 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Star Trek: Discovery season 2 has been listed as one of the
Media and drama good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: June 16, 2020. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Acceptable poster? -- Alex TW 10:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
@ Adamstom.97: Upon reverting a reorganization of the content, this edit comment stated:
I believe it is too early to split the information up like that, especially the writing section, plus development should be in chronological order so it can show progression. The lead is consistent with the rest of the topic and follows a standard style, so the format change is unnecessary
I agree that each section needs to maintain chronological order to show progression, just as you say. And for precisely that reason, the information needs to be reorganized under narrower subsection headers, as the reverted edits did.
As it stands, the paragraphs are excessively long (see WP:PARAGRAPH), and each one includes statements on multiple topics such as:
The article presently maintains chronological order under section headings that are too broad. The result is that each paragraph reads like a list of loosely-related events. Lumping them all together chronologically only impedes the reader's understanding, because each topic gets briefly addressed and quickly abandoned until the middle of the next paragraph.
I don't think it's ever "too early to split" disorganized WP:PARAGRAPHs of that kind, so that each paragraph and subsection can successfully convey information on a single topic, and chronological order is maintained under each section header. That's what my edits attempted to do. If you think it's too early, then at least we're in agreement that it's ultimately going to be necessary. Why not now? Lwarrenwiki ( talk) 18:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Just watched the two mini-episodes, the second being co-written by well-known author Michael Chabon. I'm not sure how to the fit them into the chronology; on my cable TV page, they appear as episodes 1.1 and 2.1.
Before I forget, plot summaries, I'll look around for titles & other credits:
1.1 A creature which can become invisible escapes from a piece of space debris brought aboard Discovery's loading bay. It has an encounter with Tilly in the otherwise-deserted cafeteria, causing the food processors to malfunction and fling food everywhere. It turns out to be a female humanoid. Tilly strikes up a relationship and their conversation continues in her quarters; they discover that they have several things in common. The creature reveals that she has discovered a way to synthesize dilithium, and that her parents and brother have died. Tilly decides to use the transporter to send her home; as she is departing, the creature reveals that her father was the king of her homeland, and with his death, she is now the queen.
1.2 An escape pod is hurtling through space carrying a single near-death occupant. Discovery brings it aboard with tractor beams. Its inhabitant, later revealed to be a soldier, finds that Discovery is empty and has been stationary for a thousand years, following orders to await the return of the crew. In the meantime, the ship's computer has evolved itself and attained intelligence and sentience. The lone soldier and the computer strike up a relationship and end up re-enacting a scene from classic dance movie Funny Face, with the computer taking the role played by Audrey Hepburn. In the end, the computer decides to send the lone soldier home on the ship's last remaining shuttle, which the computer has christened Funny Face; they exchange heartfelt farewells. Tim Bray ( talk) 06:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I notice that we have summaries for the first four episodes.
But not for Saints of Imperfection, or The Sounds of Thunder: the two most recently broadcast episodes.
Despite the fact the release date, writers and directors sections have been filled in.
Is it possible to correct that?
Cuddy2977 ( talk) 08:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Most of the characters in this show have a military rank. However, these ranks are sometimes ignored in the summaries. I'd like to establish a style whereby, on first reference, we refer to characters using their full ranks and their full names with a link to that character's Wikipedia page if one exists. Then, on second reference, we should use the shortest names possible without ranks or a link reference. To prevent reader confusion, this style should be applied for each summary rather than the entire page.
Here's how it would look in practice: Commander Michael Burnham sought the advice of her close friend, Commander Saru, on how to negotiate with the Ba'ul. Saru said that would be impossible because the Ba'ul are amoral. Note that Saru doesn't have a WP link because no WP page exists on him.
Please give me your opinions. Lechonero ( talk) 23:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
User 193.114.117.128 In the reffered links last episode is mentioned as “Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2”. http://trekcore.com/blog/2019/04/new-photos-star-trek-discovery-season-finale-such-sweet-sorrow-part-2/ https://trekmovie.com/2019/04/13/star-trek-discovery-co-showrunner-says-season-2-finale-will-provide-answers-to-the-shows-mysteries/
So, there is two episodes (part 1&2) Lado85 ( talk) 09:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
So why is episode 13 called "Such Sweet Sorrow" and episode 14 is called "Such Sweet Sorrow Part 2?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.84.43.10 ( talk) 12:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Could I understand, please, why does not Sara Mitich appear in recurrent or even notable characters? According to IMDB, she played in 7 episodes this season. Thank you. IKhitron ( talk) 13:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't like how this is phrased at all. It states that it is a fact when it has been debunked that it was ever an actual legal requirement. I think it needs to be rephrased to state plainly that the designers were mistaken in their understanding and it was not a legal requirement. oknazevad ( talk) 21:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
John Eaves and Scott Schneider, designers of the starships for the series, redesigned the USS Enterprise for Star Trek: Discovery. They claimed that they were required to make it 25 percent different from Matt Jefferies' original design due to legal concerns regarding the ownership of different Star Trek elements. CBS later explained that they were free to reuse Jefferies' design in Star Trek: Discovery, but design changes were made for the series to take advantage of modern visual effects.Thoughts? - adamstom97 ( talk) 05:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)