 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Is there any way to get those section edit links to stop appearing in the text at the background section? Tetigit 04:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- I fixed it at the template. Cburnett 05:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
So... any idea why the production numbers are reversed? It's like that on the DVD, so it's not a typo on our end. -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Because of scheduling issues with Leonard Nemoy, they had to film the second half before the first, so the production numbers are reversed.
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 06:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Unification (Star Trek: The Next Generation) → Unification (Star Trek) – While "Star Trek" is a necessary disambiguater, the "The Next Generation" part isn't - so we should remove it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose – While I understand the motivation, I don't feel the compulsion for making so slight an improvement. Also, this is the opposite move to the one I was just supporting for The Dauphin (Star Trek). —jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 09:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose – as per WP:NCTV (see section 'Episode articles'): when you have to disambig. an episode by the show's name, you need to use the show's (full) name! Disamb'ing as proposed here would imply that this was an episode of Star Trek (i.e. ST:TOS), which it is not. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 13:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose, the full name of the show isn't the same across the board. Randy Kryn 13:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per the above; too much potential for confusion with the original Star Trek series. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Since the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "Unification" continues on Star Trek: Discovery, I think it should now be considered a three-part episode in the Star Trek franchise. TVBuff90 ( talk) 17:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- It was wildly inappropriate to insert Star Trek Discovery into this episode article as "Part III". It is a separate episode from almost 3 decades later and should be treated as such. At most it merits only a brief mention, and the continuity note in the Background section seems acceptable. -- 109.78.196.125 ( talk) 06:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Categories:
- C-Class television articles
- Low-importance television articles
- C-Class Episode coverage articles
- Low-importance Episode coverage articles
- Episode coverage task force articles
- WikiProject Television articles
- C-Class Star Trek articles
- Mid-importance Star Trek articles
- WikiProject Star Trek articles
- C-Class science fiction articles
- Low-importance science fiction articles
- WikiProject Science Fiction articles
|
| This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Is there any way to get those section edit links to stop appearing in the text at the background section? Tetigit 04:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- I fixed it at the template. Cburnett 05:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
So... any idea why the production numbers are reversed? It's like that on the DVD, so it's not a typo on our end. -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Because of scheduling issues with Leonard Nemoy, they had to film the second half before the first, so the production numbers are reversed.
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 06:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Unification (Star Trek: The Next Generation) → Unification (Star Trek) – While "Star Trek" is a necessary disambiguater, the "The Next Generation" part isn't - so we should remove it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose – While I understand the motivation, I don't feel the compulsion for making so slight an improvement. Also, this is the opposite move to the one I was just supporting for The Dauphin (Star Trek). —jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 09:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose – as per WP:NCTV (see section 'Episode articles'): when you have to disambig. an episode by the show's name, you need to use the show's (full) name! Disamb'ing as proposed here would imply that this was an episode of Star Trek (i.e. ST:TOS), which it is not. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 13:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose, the full name of the show isn't the same across the board. Randy Kryn 13:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per the above; too much potential for confusion with the original Star Trek series. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Since the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "Unification" continues on Star Trek: Discovery, I think it should now be considered a three-part episode in the Star Trek franchise. TVBuff90 ( talk) 17:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- It was wildly inappropriate to insert Star Trek Discovery into this episode article as "Part III". It is a separate episode from almost 3 decades later and should be treated as such. At most it merits only a brief mention, and the continuity note in the Background section seems acceptable. -- 109.78.196.125 ( talk) 06:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Categories:
- C-Class television articles
- Low-importance television articles
- C-Class Episode coverage articles
- Low-importance Episode coverage articles
- Episode coverage task force articles
- WikiProject Television articles
- C-Class Star Trek articles
- Mid-importance Star Trek articles
- WikiProject Star Trek articles
- C-Class science fiction articles
- Low-importance science fiction articles
- WikiProject Science Fiction articles