Talk:Star Trek: First Contact/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Old text

---

Peter Winnberg, Monday, April 8, 2002 :

Moved from [[Star Trek 8 Talk]]:

---

202.67.64.xxx, I've removed your review, because as a community we've decided to stay out of the movie reviewing business (see the neutral point of view policy). I know a few of your additions to Wikipedia have been removed; I hope you don't get discouraged and stop contributing. --Stephen Gilbert

---

If by that you mean that we as a community decided to avoid saying whether a movie was worth watching, yes, we have. If you mean we as a community have decided not to discuss plot, direction, relevant facts about a movie's production, etc., no, we have not. The consensus seems to be that we discuss whatever we wish to about a movie provided it is in a non-libellous, fair, and unopinionated way (what most people here call the Neutral Point of View); and that if we want to discuss plot elements people might not know about, we warn them first, since this is after all an encyclopedia (though not yet as immediately recognizable an encycylopedia as Britannica). I wouldn't bring up the distinction between reviewing and providing (mostly academic) criticism of a movie, except most people in the U.S. Just Don't Get It.

I was simply refering to the line that gave the movie 5 stars, and asked others to rate it. Don't worry, I know the difference between a review and a critique. ;-) --Stephen Gilbert

Errors and inconsistencies

to two errors: with datas uniform, when its corrosive to flesh, why does that mean its corrosive to uniforms too ? couldnt it just be that the uniform is synthetic ? and the explanation for the real time communication is easy: new technology.

I removed this one. If I recall correctly, Data said the coolant would "liquify organic material on contact." This does not make it corrosive nor does it imply it would have any effect on his synthetic uniform. - Hayter 20:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

When Picard is showing Lily the view of Earth, we can see Australia, New Guinea, and the Solomons. New Zealand is missing from the coast of Australia. — I've never noticed that one! Can anyone provide a screenshot? Marky1981 20:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll try and get one up when I get home tonight, as I have the DVD. I've removed the "error" about Worf not being an officer of the Enterprise at the time, as it is purely speculative - we do not know if officers from any ship can activate autodestruct, or only those from the ship itself, as it is never explained. In any case, Worf had been reinstated on the Enterprise. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 08:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, he was reinstated. Presumably Worf's command codes would have to be reactivated (and would have been offscreen), or he could not have taken charge of the bridge, security or tactical. Also, what if a Starfleet officer beamed over to a ship in a combat scenario where the other ship's crew had been captured or killed? I assume (s)he would be able to auto-destruct the ship to prevent its capture. --CokeBear 11:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

In ''Star Trek III: The Search for Spock'', Enterprise's autodestruct sequence is activated by Kirk, Scott, and Chekov. At that point, Chekov is not a member of the Enterprise crew; he has been serving on Reliant for months or even years. And Scott has just been reassigned to Excelsior as "Captain of Engineering". My conjecture: a starship's autodestruct can be activated by any Starfleet bridge officer (that is, anyone who has passed the qualification test and been promoted to Commander as shown in "Thine Own Self"). Pat Berry 03:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

As for the thing about the time messages take to reach the neutral zone from earth, round trip time is two hours, forty seven minutes (Balance of Terror). Assuming (and this is quite a big assumption) that maximum warp speed is the same as communication speed, I don't see a big problem as an hour and a half is unlikely to decide a battle.

The Neutral Zone is not a point; it's a long, narrow region that extends across a significant portion of the galaxy. Some parts of it are undoubtedly closer to Earth than others, and the travel time will vary accordingly. Pat Berry 03:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I moved this from the article, since it is more appropriate for the Talk section:

"...(however this may not be in error: the "2063" timeline was supposed to be shortly after a nuclear Third World War. Perhaps New Zealand was completely destroyed; however, an episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine referred to the existence of a penal colony in New Zealand, presumably the same penal colony where Tom Paris was imprisoned.)" ~ Reaverdrop 07:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

New Zealand wasn't destroyed. In addition to the penal colony, we know that Jake Sisko is offered a scholarship to attend the Pennington School in New Zealand in 2371 ("Explorers"). Pat Berry 03:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

When Doctor Crusher, Ogawa and Sloan escape from sick bay when the Borg first attack it is assumed that sick bay is on Deck 16. However in Star Trek Nemesis the sick bay is on Deck 7 "

I don;t think this should be included, since sick bay simply could have been moved. --Ughmonster 05:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Starfleet vessels are particularly modular as far as "rooms" go, though I can't recall any evidence either way. Even the Nebula class starship is only modular to the degree of a changeable hull component. Besides, even if it were "easy" to move around room units, sick bay always appears to be of a different shape and size than most other rooms. Nshewmaker 18:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

In the ST: Voyager episode "Year of Hell", Seven makes an off-hand comment/inside joke about the Borg being present at First Contact. If the collective is aware that her people were actually there (it seems un-Borg-like to make assumptions), then it must have received some contact from the Borg in 2063. Since the whole point of the deflector dish plot was to stop the Borg from calling for reinforcements, it would seem Picard and Co. failed. Of course, if the Borg were ever really serious, they'd send more than one cube. ;) Nshewmaker 18:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Irony?

Undoubtedly, there is a great deal of debate over the meaning of the word "ironic". Most people who have given it any serious thought realize that the word is vastly overused by people who haven't a clue as to what it means. I therefore appreciate the effort to expunge irony where it doesn't belong, but I respectfully disagree.

The irony here is real, albeit non-traditional, because it involves a connect between two characters who do not appear in the same venue, but rather, are only connected by the actor. The irony therefore is focused on Patrick Stewart, whose plays one character who is motivated to a course of action because someone unfavorably compares his character (in First Contact) to another character in another work (Moby Dick). He is motivated because he does not want to be seen as Captain Ahab, yet later goes on to play Captain Ahab. This, to me, is ironic, if not within the story itself, then within the life of Patrick Stewart. Unschool 19:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Taken word for word from IMDB

Honest to god, the order isnt even changed.

Error?

Most significant of all is the Borg Queen herself. The Borg have been established in Trek lore as a collective consciousness, so the idea of a "Borg Leader" is contradiction in terms This is under Errors and Inconsistencies. Whilst the idea of a single leader for a collective conciousness would seem to be at first, a contradiction, the fact that Data points this out in the film clearly shows that the writers were aware of this so it is not an error, and it does not contradict anything that has been shown onscreen before (or after) so it is not an inconsistency. The exact relationship between the Queen and the collective is up for debate (as is her existence in later Voyager episodes though cloning is the likely explanation), but the most obvious analogy would be the relationship between a hive of bees and their queen. Clearly the Borg relationship is more complex and when questioned regarding it, the Queen answers only in a cryptic fashion however as said, the existence of the Queen as a leader though immediately confusing, is neither an error nor an inconsistency -Hayter 14:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Time

Data, his patches of real skin gone, reveals that he had considered her offer of joining her for only 0.43 seconds - although "to an android, that can be an eternity."

First Contact was on the Sci Fi channel a little while ago, and my dad and I heard him say 0.68 seconds. Which is right? Mr. Quertee 23:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's .68. I just watched the recording I've got of it. Kevin W.

It is .68 seconds. Willie 08:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Tough little ship

funny how worf said that about the defiant in ds9, but riker says it and worf is ready to kick his ass -Lordraydens 07:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

Why doesn't this article contain any reviews of the movie, or even tell how well it did in theaters? Vesperal

Removed External Link

I removed this external link from the page (link removed) If someone disagrees, let me know, or put it back. Chuck^(contrib) 01:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I rather disagree myself, although that's primarily for the fact that I posted them... I have my reasons.

Since they're made by fans for fans and gives a satirical insight whose humour doesn't limit itself to the mere Trekkie or well-watched Trekker, I feel it's a pretty plusgood contribution. Read one for yourself, unless you're not a fan of anything... Which I'd highly doubt.

Since it has already been discussed and authorised on [[Talk:List of Star Trek: Enterprise episodes, I've been taking on the duty of linking the appropriate links to the corresponding episode pages for Star Trek: Enterprise, Doctor Who, Star Trek: The Original Series, Star Trek: The Animated Series, and prolly well-surpass in forthcoming time-periods. I've gain recognition upon the very news (9.6.06 C.E.) section of that site itself for my trivial misadventures across the Wiki-realm and back.

DrWho42 04:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

These links are being removed per WP:EL, sorry. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Trivia reductions

Could we perhaps divide up the trivia into different sections? Batman (1989 film)'s trivia is broken up as such, and looks much better. I'm posting this so we can get some sort of consensus about the sections. EVula 20:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think to start with some trivia can be removed. For example, there seems to be an assumption that Data's reference to how many years it has been since he has used his sexuality functions refers to Tasha Yar, but the dates do not line up. Naked Now takes place on stardate 41209, and First Contact is stardate 50893. Established canon for Next Generation is that a year is 1000 units on a stardate, and that would make Data's encounter with Yar more than 9 and a half years in the past. The dates also do not line up with ST:TNG's "In Theory" (44932) in which Data has a relationship with Ensign D'Sora, nor can calendar dates be used as Naked Now aired in Oct 87, and FC debuted in Nov 96. There is no evidence in canon that would make that piece of trivia factual. So, it is best left out, IMO.--CokeBear 11:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I cut out the opinion that the Defiant was simply swept aside by the Borg cube (which it was not, it had been fighting the damn thing since the battle started all the way to Earth and was STILL punching holes in the Cube) as an irrelevancy-- Chris O'Farrell.

uniforms thing

this appears to be a mangling of the Star Trek: Generations story, where indeed the Enterprise crew were wearing DS9 costumes. For First Contact, the uniforms were new for that movie, and only introduced into DS9 later on. Morwen - Talk 11:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Its tricky isn't it... the DS9 episode The Ascent aired 11/25/96, 3 days after the FC premiere, but I can't recall who was wearing which uniform because it was an episode focusing on Odo and Quark primarily. The new uniforms were DEFINITELY on the next episode of DS9 from 12/30/96. The next episode of DS9 with a stardate is The Darkness and the Light, 50416.2 (FC is on SD 50893). So, stardates say the uniforms were on DS9 first but calendar debut dates say they were on ST:FC first. It would seem one simply needs to accept that starfleet changed uniforms universally, and no one was wearing anyone else's.--CokeBear 11:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Gravett Island

I wonder why the article "Gravett Island" (more info) redirects here. Psylocibe 09:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Because it's not all to notable and not enough is known for us to spin an article out of it. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Parallels to Aliens

Some parts of the plot seem to mirror Aliens rather a lot. Any mention of that worthy here, provided someone could find a source for it. In List of cultural references to Alien, it says First Contact's Borg designers deliberately mimed Giger's designs for the aliens, which is something. But the way the Borg assimilated the ship bears rather remarkable resemblence to the way the aliens "assimiliated" the power plant-thingy in Aliens and the Borg Queen has obvious parallels to the alien queen. I remember there being other things... but it's been a long time since I've seen either movie so I honestly don't remember them. :) RobertM525 06:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Warp speed

The effects of the stars going past at warp speed is not the stars actually going past that quickly, it's merely a distortion of the light caused by the subspace bubble generated by the warp nacelles. Thus even travelling within the solar system, the stars would become streaks. mattbuck 00:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Notes/Trivia

Jesus, this section is huge. 71.246.157.168 17:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Copied from IMDB

People have already mentioned on this talk page that trivia has been copied directly from the IMDB page. As this violates WP:COPYVIO I've deleted most of it. Some of the stuff might have been original additions and I apologise if I've included proper trivia in the cull. Theme 17:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Are we sure that it wasn't the other way around?

Regardless, there was a lot of unsourced stuff in there, so I'm not entirely sad to see it go, but I feel that we should double-check which came first before stating it is a copyvio. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Here is the diff between 2004-12-29 and the next edit on 2005-02-25. The trivia was added by User:Brandeks, whose talk page history shows previous copyright violations. Earliest appearance of same trivia on IMDB page, archived on 2004-12-12. Theme 12:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ending

Why has nobody questioned the fact that the Enterprise-E was in orbit over earth, and that the Vulcans (no matter how poor their sensor readings) would have tried to contact it rather than Cochrane? It is a new warp signature, and it is far more interesting than a small nuclear missile to them, and much more visible (you can see it from the ground!). Also, even though earth was recovering from a world war, they would have detected the enterprise from the ground, or at least the escape pods (Voyager could be detected around 50 years before).

The first point was already addressed in the movie:

"The moon's gravitational field obscured our warp signature. The Vulcans did not detect us."

The second point requires that the Enterprise be easily detected from orbit. Voyager was discovered by visual means first because it entered the Earth's atmosphere, the Enterprise did not do this. --OuroborosCobra 20:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ending / Vulcans / Translation

As others have pointed out, the Vulcans have no problem communicating with Cochrane during first contact. Is it possible that the Vulcans first introduced the technology to Earth? Are there other UT origins out there? I can't think of any (it is a plot device, after all). --Junius49 04:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As evidenced in Star Trek Enterprise's "Carbon Creek", the Vulcans had been studying Earth for over 100 years prior to First Contact. They probably knew the language. --OuroborosCobra 05:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Plot - Edits and Formatting

In regards to the edits undone here, the following reason was given:

Plot: the plot does not need subsections, rm pointless details, the plot does not need to be this long)

First, the brief intro of the time and relation to other Trek works does contribute to the summary. This serves to put the subject of this article in context of related works of fiction. Further, because this is a time travel movie... it clarifies the "reference" time period. Reading this plot summary, someone not acquainted with the movie would not know that the framing story is occurring centuries later. See the plot summary of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home for an example of a similar intro. See also WP:WAF#Plot summaries (I am adding a revised version that hopefully is more palatable.)

In regards to breaking up the plot into subsections, the plot is long and difficult to follow, particularly as this movie involves time changes and very different locations (battle over "modern" Earth, camp on "old" Earth, "modern" starship overrun by Borg, etc.). I though introducing sections in such a long piece of text would help readability. You obviously do not agree... however, I still think we need to break up some of those awfully long paragraphs with their run on sentences and clauses leading to more clauses leading to things that should be separate sentences and so on. (I am adding paragraph breaks in a few select places.)

Under Picard's command the fleet destroys the Borg cube, but as it explodes,
it ejects a sphere which the Enterprise follows through a time vortex created by the sphere.
They discover that the Borg have managed to conquer the Earth in the past, destroying the future.
Continuing on, the two ships arrive in the year 2063.

These sentences make no logical sense and misrepresent the plot of the movie. I will again try to correct the sequence: Cube explodes -> Sphere emerge -> Sphere goes back in time -> Earth changes -> Enterprise goes back in time. And the phrases "destroying the future" and "Continuing on" are nonsensical.

I agree the plot is too long, much of the detail belongs in Memory Alpha but not here... my hope in breaking up the plot into sections had been to help focus the descriptions so that they could be more easily edited down. Obviously there were objections to that... I do want to point out that although Plot subsections are rare, they do appear in Pulp Fiction (film), and unlike 2001: A Space Odyssey (film), this article does not have stills to help illustrate and divide up the plot.--Marcinjeske (talk) 12:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree it needs to be re-written, but the plot is not complicated or long enough to require sub-sections, that's why I removed them. The plot section is without doubt the least important part of the whole article, so as long as it is understandable and doesn't go into detail that's fine. I'm not a very good prose writer, so you're help would be appreciated. But sub-sections (in this case) are pointless, and although I agree with the rest of the things you have said, I will not agree with that. Also, usually having cast names in the plot is only necessary when there isn't a "Cast and characters" section. In this case there is, so they do not need to be included in the Plot as well, it's just repeating the same information, so I'm gonna remove them. But aside from that, if you can make the plot read compelling and write so it won't confuse anyone who hasn't seen the film, then by all means do. Good luck, Gran² 14:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry took so long to reply... I got distracted by real life and some pointless discussions involving two other pages. Having looked over some more film plots, I do agree that sections are not necessary.. because it is the underlying text anyway that is what creates some confusion. I will try my hand at some gradual, incremental changes to give the passage an easier flow for the casual reader. I do think at some point in the future that including the actor's names in the plot might warrant consideration, but it is not a crucial issue. --Marcinjeske (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Trademark litigation section

I have removed this section, because having searched all of my press and online source searches etc. I cannot find anything (aside from the source wiki page) to say that the case even happened, let alone the specifics. If someone has a reliable source then it can be put back. Gran² 15:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

And, for the record, here's the diff of the removal.[1]
I totally support its removal, though I'd love to see a source for the claim and see it reinserted; it's rather interesting, but without a source, it's gotta go. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't need a secondary source to prove the case exists; the primary source (the docket number or whatever it is called in the US) is enough to prove that. However, a secondary source would be good for the lengthy interpretation given in the diff above.

"The more imaginative and suggestive the title the greater the likelihood a court will find protection versus titles that merely describe the contents of the work. Titles also may be considered generic when they describe a subcategory of works rather than the work itself. A title that has become the generic term for an entire genre that includes various forms of entertainment, such as book and films, is not protected. The title "First Contact" relates to the entire category of science fiction concerning human contact with space aliens. As a result, the court refused to grant trademark protection to a story with the same title"

The footnotes cite "Heirs of Estate of Jenkins v. Paramount Pictures, 90 F. Supp. 2d 706 (E.D. Va. 2000)". That is from Scott, Michael D.; James N Talbott. Scott on Multimedia Law, 2, Aspen Publishers, 110. (Scott is an authority on US multimedia law, among other things, and this chapter dwells on trademark law). I advise anyone with access to US cases on Lexis Nexis or something to check the judgment given. In the meantime I will return the case number to the article as "further reading". Bradley0110 (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Scott is available to look at on Google Books, btw. Bradley0110 (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added this info back in. As others stated, the primary source is sufficient, but to make people happy I have also added in an additional source.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The additonal source seems to be an unreliable fansite. I still think another source is necessary, I mean, how is this notable if it had no significant press coverage? Gran² 13:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It did receive some press coverage at the time, such as in Cinescape. The problem is that the web does not archive everything so I can't produce that reference at the moment. I'll see if I can find it the next time I go to the library. As for notability, no one is saying this subject is important enough to merit its own article. But as a small item at the end of this article, this subject has enough notability to be mentioned.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

TrekToday is run by UGO Networks, so I think it's an acceptable fansite source. Alientraveller (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

I have begun reviewing this article for GA status. Further comments are welcome in this section.--Finalnight (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of May 1, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Fail

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Fail

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

After a careful review of the article, it is mostly in GA form. However, the plot summary is still overly long (I did notice the positive revisions that occured over the last week) and written in an in-universe style. Also, there are still a number of grammatical issues within the article as well as spelling errors. This is why I believe it current fails the "well written" and "broad in coverage" portions of GA criteria.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.--Finalnight (talk) 03:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Most plot sections tend to be written in an in-universe style, that is the nature of them. And could you explain why it fails "broad in coverage"? I dn't understand what the coverage problem is. Gran² 05:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Broad in coverage means according to the good article criteria

It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:
(a) addresses the major aspects of the topic; and
(b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).

Part B directly relates to my previous concern about and overly lengthy and in-depth plot summary. Plot sections are generally supposed to look something akin to these example plot summaries given on the fiction writing guide i linked in my review: LOTR (this one is longer due to it covering 3 books, Illuminatus (this one also covers three books, but stays quite short)--Finalnight (talk) 06:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I'll rewrite and shorten it over the next week. Gran² 06:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I did some revisions, see how you like it:--Finalnight (talk) 06:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Finalnight makes some astonishingly obvious points that we have overlooked... the plot summary is completely opaque to anyone who is not already steeped in Star Trek knowledge. I like many of the suggestions in the rewrite below... I will take a few swipes to incorporate the easiest ones, as well as further cut out unimportant material. --Marcinjeske (talk) 07:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have made:

• several passes through the plot, incorporating many of Finalnight's suggestions and taking other opportunities as I could envision them. However a few things I left off:
  • I see no need to specify that the year 2373 is in the future, nor that it is fictional (in fact, the year 2373 is very real, just that the events depicted in the movie are not) - even were this article to be read in in 2375, it would be clear to the reader that for a 1996 film, 2373 was in the future.
  • Federation... I switched to the full name United Federation of Planets, I can't quite see how to describe the Federation better without just repeating that it is an organization of planet governments.
  • I left the reference to Worf, because he otherwise doesn't really have a purpose in the film. The USS Defiant is a footnote because that information is useful to connect with the DS9 series.
  • I capitalized Cube and Sphere, even though it goes against ST convention... in order to make sure the casual reader understands that these are just as significant as a named ship like Enterprise.
  • the Vulcans at the time were not exactly peaceful... so I went with advanced
  • I kept the holodeck safety reference... because otherwise a reader might wonder how a hologram can kill you... also stuck the holonovel stuff into a footnote because it is worthy of note as continuity from holodeck use on the show
  • taking the chip from within a drone is important... it emphasizes the biomechanical aspect.
  • I thoughr "Borg of the time period" was too vague... we need to remind the reader that they have jumped back in time significantly
  • Locutus needed some more explanation... otherwise we just kinda pop it in there without context
• I have also wikified some badly need phrases in later sections... things that are obvious to fans but are likely to be unknown to readers... this includes repeating wiki links when the original is buried in another section or way up the page.
• more controversially I have added some images to break the monotony of the test... and illustrate the three main points of the movie: scary borg, hopeful humans, cool ship.
• most controversially, I am taking the opportunity to propose a general solution (for those fictional universes which have well-established wikis) to the persistent problem of plots getting longer because people want more detail - I added an explicit bootnote sending them to Memory Alpha. The aim is to serve both the reader who wants more detail to figure out what the heck happened in the movie... and to server the editor who want to add more detailed plot info. I think it is a great idea that causes little harm to the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia - and it is an Interwiki link.

So, on the whole, I hope I did much more good than harm... and I say we shoot straight for the top (we better get somewhere given how much time I managed to waste on it). And Gran plot considerations aside, you have only yourself to blame for reminding me about this, the need to improve this article. --Marcinjeske (talk) 13:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks great, and good idea with the Memory Alpha link, although I'm going to remove the plot images "break the monotony of the text" does not satisfy fair use laws. The Borg cube and Phoenix are linked anyway, so if someone wants to see what they look like, they can just click on that. But the plot section doesn't need images, because the poster illustrates the plot well anyway. Gran² 14:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad you like it... first note... I really do think the "plotnote" should be at the bottom if it is to have any chance of survival. This is not summary style, we are adding an internal link... and I think we can better defend that we are not "surrendering" the article's role to inform if the reader reads through the Wikipedia plot and then decides that they want to go more in depth... we only want them jumping off the pedia if they truly are not satisfied with the plot after they have read it. I have not found any other similar use of a memory alpha link... so I want to anticipate concerns.

As for the images, please note my whole, casually written rationale:

• added some images to break the monotony of the test... and illustrate the three main points of the movie: scary borg, hopeful humans, cool ship.

You are right that monotony is not a valid fair use reason... that was my stylistic reason, but then I went on to (briefly) justify use (with the obviously inadequate scary borg, hopeful humans, cool ship part), so here is more detail:

• the borg ship illustrate the main villain of the film ... chosen over an image of the Queen because the Borg still are a collective. The movie revolves around a reaction to Borg action. (but honestly, the image is bland and I would have preferred a good drone... so if you insist, not a problem.)
• the phoenix... well... that's pretty much the entire other side of the movie... focused on how this little ship and it's ability to stick out puny nacelles that light up is going to change humanity as we know it. The illustrates the moment the whole movie leads up to... making sure that this "historic" moment occurs.
• the enterprise... it was placed right next to the passage discussing the thinking that went into the new ships design.... if that is not fair use... under critical analysis for instance?

Anyway, if you really want to squeeze me on formal rationale for fair use for the Pheonix and the Enterprise... I will do that as I think they materially strengthen the article. Also, like I said, I think the memory alpha link fits much better at the bottom... if we are going to be bold and break convention, we might as well go all the way on solid footing. --Marcinjeske (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added a rationale for the Enterprise image, because that justifies fair use as it illustrates design. In this instance, the images of the Borg cube and Phoenix ship do not only fail to justify fair use laws (with whatever rationale you give them) they did add all that much. As said, if people want to know what the ships look like they'll click on the link. Plus the Borg drones as on the poster so they are not needed in the plot. I think the only plot image which would be justified, and add to the article substantially, would be something like an image of Riker, Geordi and Cochrane in the Phoenix cockpit. As for the plot link, I moved it to the top because that's where see also links go. Thinking about it, it may not actually be needed after all. Because the Memory Alpha is linked at the bottom, and like the images, if something wants to read a more detailed plot, the can just go there. Gran² 19:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I fiddled a bit with the quote position to get better context and layout across a variety of screen width. The other images I am not crying for... you have me intrigued with this idea of a group photo.. sadly, the only thing already on here is Zefie, and that's no good (although William Cochrane, 1831-1898 seems to have been very prolific with the daguerotype and there is this guy baby Riker who could pass for a young Riker... oh well. I think that "Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television." would cover the ship discussed in the plot... but it would be a toss up.

As for the link... it's not really a "see also" link in the summary style sense... it is like giving the Plot section it's own relevant external link... honestly, while I think it is very valuable to have, it is distracting at the top of the plot, and I think it has a greater risk of not having consensus if it is so prominent... but I guess we will see...

The reason to have it in the first place, and why i would argue the memory alpha link at the very end of the article is not enough... is that people tend not to notice the links at the very bottom of the article until and if they have read the whole thing... my goal was to explicitly note it as further information about the plot, which we reasonably curtail in Wikipedia. I guess it does serve the same purpose as summary style... but unlike intra-wiki summaries, where we want to offer the full article prominently... for inter-wiki summaries, the "full" article should be presented less prominently while still connected to the plot... hence the boot note.

Anyway, what ever happens with that... I think we have gone a long way toward addressing the concerns in the current review... I read through the rest of the article and didn't see any obvious problems, and it looks like the main barb of the review related to the plot. Hooray! --Marcinjeske (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we've answered all the review concerns, good job. As for the trio image, if you think it's a good idea I'll just get one - I have got the technology. Gran² 20:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of May 2, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

After a careful review of the article, it complies with all GA criteria. The previous plot summary issues have been addressed and it is no longer written in an in-universe style. Further work on the movie's production or any information on the court case that was mentioned may help bring this into compliance with Featured Article standards. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Finalnight (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Gran² 22:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed in Development section

"...with the original concept being in medieval times. The idea was abandoned when Stewart refused to wear tights." I find this quote hard to believe since Patrick Stewart was once a part of the Royal Shakespeare Company. I put a "citation needed" tag on it, although it may be appropriate just to delete it unless someone knows this was actually the case. --Kevman459 (talk) 10:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It is sourced. Reference 6 cover the entire paragraph. Gran² 14:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

place Among seasons

chronologic, where in the timeline, can this film be placed? which season? --Fotte (talk) 10:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

In the year 2373, during Deep Space Nine season 5 and Voyager season 3. This puts it roughly a year before the Dominion War. Obviously it cannot be placed in a TNG season. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

date for filming

How can the principal photography have been finished in July 1995 when the First Draft script has a date of September 1995? JoeD80 (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I found the answer -- because photography wrapped in July 1996, not 1995. Fixing. JoeD80 (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)