Memory Alpha talk:Template for Episode

From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference

I took the liberty of changing the memorable quotes format. I took in consideration the little discussion we had on ten forward, mainly the clarity point (repeating the names each time have a bad effect on indentation/length/readability). Feel free to bring your own arguments Rcog 17:51, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nits (moved from Memory Alpha:Ten Forward)

There's discussion on a couple of user pages on a Nits (or Nitpicks) policy. I think this would be a valid and useful feature to have incorporated in most episode articles and that it should be made official. Consensus/comment is sought. Specifically, Nits should be a third-level category under Background Information. The stuff that's under Background Information now should be placed under the third-level category Notes (unless it's already under something more specific as it is in a few ep articles). So it would look like this:

==Background Information==
===Notes===
*NOTES ABOUT THE EPISODE

===Nits===
*NITS FROM THE EPISODE

Opinions? --9er 14:28, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I still oppose the idea of a "nitpick" section. In my opinion, nitpicks tend to be subjective and "unencyclopedic". On one of the user talk pages, the TATV-nitpick that was removed was brought up again, and I think that this is a good example. That nitpick was about the apparently missing security guards when Enterprise was boarded in that episode. My question: So what? There surely are precedents for guards arriving too late or not at all, there are dozens of other good reasons for that, and the scene doesn't violate continuity in any way. If we allow all subjective nitpicks, we're opening a big can of worms.

However, I don't have any problems with a "continuity" section (like on "These Are the Voyages...") to compare different episodes and also note objective discrepancies between them. -- Cid Highwind 15:44, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I am undecided for this. I have no problem with a nitpick section, but it could get out of hand, however, if done right it could keep the formal nature of MA. For example, check out "The Naked Now". In the Background section, there is a slight nitpick, but it is kept formal. However, if done incorrectly, nitpick sections would have to be moderated a lot. Now, for a Continuity section, I support that. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 15:50, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Having had time to think about this, I agree with Cid that nitpicks do tend to be subjective and therefore should be limited to describing only the apparent violations of continuity (i.e. Romulan cloaking devices in the 22nd century or the like). Therefore, I think an actual nitpicks section is not needed, but a continuity section sounds like a great idea. But, if we do describe discrepancies, we must also describe references to continuity that are correct. The section in the article for "These Are the Voyages..." is a good example of what should be done (kudos to Defiant and anyone else who worked on that). Before, I was complaining about the removal of the nitpick I had added (the one mentioned by Cid, about the lack of security in the episode) because I didn't fully understand why it was removed. Now that I do, however, I believe I agree with the decision to remove it. I also believe the "Naked Now" nitpick pointed out by Enzo falls under the same category - it, too, seems a big subjective, even though it, like the lack of security in TATV, is an oddity... maybe that's just me, though. Anyway, in sum, I think nitpicks should be placed within the context of continuity, that they should be formal and not based on a personal viewpoint, and that they should be listed along with references which do keep continuity intact. Knowhatimean? --From Andoria with Love 04:52, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Rather than postings a "nits" section on the episode page, why not just reference the errors on the specific article that makes specific reference to the person or object that is in error in that pages respective background section? Personally, that is what I dislike about "background" section on episode pages. Unless there is something that has to do with the production of the episode, the rest should go on to individual article pages. I've noticed a lot of useful information for article pages that is simply stashed on the episode page that isn't being used to enhance the page that contains the information the so-called "background" info is explaining. --Alan del Beccio 18:26, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)

There appears to be little consensus on this. But check out the Nitpicks section on "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" (which I didn't add by the way). Would that be better in a Continuity section (between episodes), or only in a non-episode article, like the one for the Galileo? I think not. And there's nothing subjective about this particular nit, though I grant that the border is hazy on the edges. -- 9er 03:50, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Is there really that little consensus? Most of us seem to agree that subjective nitpicks shouldn't have a place on MA. Regarding the LTBYLB-nitpick, which is about a "wrong" registry number on the Starbase 4 shuttle - according to Alan's suggestion, I would put that on either an article about that shuttle (which doesn't exist yet, but could be created here: Starbase 4 shuttle) or the Starbase article itself (if a shuttle article should not be created). It could additionally be appended to the item in the "Background information" list that already states that "Stock footage from "The Galileo Seven" is used for all of the shuttlecraft shots.". -- Cid Highwind 11:30, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Problematic about nitpick sections -- its quickly becoming a showcase for people who don't understand the plots of the episodes, or simply aren't paying close attention, and assuming that there are mistakes.

I've removed a background note on Star Trek: Insurrection dealing with the scene where the senior crew confronts Picard (planning to disobey orders and join the battle on the surface), and all the officers except Geordi and Riker are out of uniform. It seemed obvious to me that the officers in civvies were wearing those clothes because they intended to join the captain, and at the end of the scene he does indeed allow them to come with him. Riker didn't really have that option, he must realize that if Picard leaves the ship, he has a heavy responsibility of command -- i maintain he never had the option of leaving, but having already discovered the plan, the rest were simply being well prepared by changing ahead of time -- i.e. they already knew who was leaving and who was staying.

Also, syndication has cut many TOS episodes down by almost a full 10 minutes, since TV shows in the 1960s were usually 46-48 minutes sans commercials, nowadays, shows are typically around 42 minutes -- these cuts are not studio edits, they are done by other sources -- sometimes at the local level. There is really no excuse for assuming there's any intention of "changing" the story, unless you think that Bob the late night tape editor at W3RF in Sheboygan is an authority on Star Trek.

I'd support a project to try and "Empty out" the Background section of every episode -- and place the episode in more usefyul places (like your Starbase 4 shuttle comment, Cid. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk

This is my next project (removal of nits). Can we impliment this into our policy or manual of style, along with point of view and how to write backgrounds? --Alan del Beccio 22:32, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Background information comes from a production POV, yes, and limited goofs are okay such as the note on last week's featured article "Paradise" that neutrally says "Sisko begins his station log aboard a runabout." That's my take anyway. Johann 22:40, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I think nitpicks have there place here, they really help to expose problems as to hash them out. Most TOS and TNG error's are not that bad, I suspect the problem with Nits is that fans don't like the glaring errors DS9 Voy and Ent have. But Nits are important because without the section people writing articles may include a "So called error" that really works out easily. What I suggest are articles like this "TOS Nitpicks Season 1". The structure will be that each Nit has a bullet, and explanations have indented bullets. Some error's even with explanations should be kept on article, but some should be removed the explanation clear. I think this is the middle ground. --TOSrules 22:27, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I think that is absolutely not "middle ground". In fact, you are actually suggesting the opposite direction. While the consensus so far seemed to be to move those comments that are considered valid from a central "episode" page to various relevant "object" pages, your suggestion is to collect even more of those nitpicks on one page. I don't think this helps in any way, because a) we would still end up with "unencyclopedic" nitpicks instead of just valid comments and b) to paraphrase Alan's earlier comment, if it is valid information about something we have an article about, it should appear on that page. -- Cid Highwind 23:41, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

For example: the nitpick that Kirk's eyes move when he is frozen by the Kelvans "paralyzer device" or whatever it is called -- some say this is a mistake, that he shouldn't have been able to. Others maintain that if a device that paralyzes people is used on Trek, but they cvan still move their eyes, that is a result of the device paralyzing you and allowing your eyes to move. Seems to me deciding either way would be speculation -- and that the info would belong best as background information at paralyzer device (i don't think its really called this, but i.e.) -- it would be better placed there than in "By Any Other Name" since it involves the device more than the episode -- and we've been over why we shouldn't duplicate data, instead we should put it in the most relevant article, and link to that article from the more general article. If you want to make a "nits" section, perhaps it should just be a list of links to a list of actors, devices, planets, ships that have oddities noted about them (and also, i hate the name "nits" -- its undescriptive). -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk

So it is more "Encyclopedic" to have the subject defused around the site, then to have one easy to reference area where it all can be found? A Nitpick is a subject of it's own in it's own way. I know you can't find a canon line for that, but neither can you for 47. When Star Trek is talked about, you will get around to the problems, especially on a site like this. At least we'll have an index for the subject. Although it still does leave the issue, what do we allow on the Nitpick Pages. --TOSrules 01:46, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Goofs, Bloopers, and Continuity

I have an idea for a new page; something along the lines of "goofs", "bloopers" or "continuity errors". It would be from production POV and would not be a dumping ground for theories on ENT, or anything like that. The goofs I mean, are ones like where parts of the set are visible, or something blatantly contrictory is said, within the same episode. I don't want this to turn into a critique, or nitpick area, just a place where very obvious production screw ups can be documented. Jaz 22:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Something like Denise Crosby waves goodbye? I think this belongs on the episode pages, like it is done on "Symbiosis". --Memory 00:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, information would remain on the pages of the episodes they relate to, and link to this new page, to build the web. Jaz 01:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Memory. This info can be added to the Background section of episodes. --Galaxy001 06:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that we should make a distinction between background information (like trivia information) and mistakes made by directors, producers and the cast. I actually found this wiki because I was thinking about creating a wiki for mistake information in ST because the IMDB doesn't have it for specific episodes. To make a bold move, I have started this new format in the article for the episode "Samaritan Snare". The title Mistakes is used for a section and then subsections are named as for the type of mistake that they cover. For instance Continuities. --Suso 05:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Has this been approved yet? If so, I've got a picture from TNG: "Home Soil", where in one part, as Riker is entering one of the turbolifts, you can see one of the legs of a light-stand poking out from behind the door. Zsingaya ^Talk 19:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)