Talk:Where No One Has Gone Before

Untitled

This page was proposed for deletion December 2004. The discussion is archived at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Where No One Has Gone Before.

What's the correct title? Where No One Has Gone Before, or Where No One has Gone Before? The page title and the first line of the article disagree. Dbenbenn 17:18, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wonder why Voyager was not able to send a message explaining their situation to Starfleet. The Enterprise did here, and established that the signal would travel about 51,000 light years in one year and arrive home in a little over 51 years. Would this be a continuity problem?
JesseG 04:45, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

grammar

[1], which is a revised final draft, has Data saying "Where none have gone before". However. It also has that as the episode title. "Where None Have Gone Before" is blatantly not the name of the episode. Can someone verify what Data actually says? Morwen - Talk 19:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Data's line is "Where none have gone before," (as confirmed at Memory Alpha) despite the episode's title being "Where No One Has Gone Before". The former was the original shooting title of the episode, but it was changed to the latter before broadcast. [2] --Arteitle 04:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. That's weird, by the way. Morwen - Talk 07:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 04:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Where No One Has Gone Before → Where No One Has Gone Before (TNG episode) — It is a Next Generation episode. I am also suggesting the original page be turned into a disambig page with a second link to Where no man has gone before as this phrase is just an update Simply south 18:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Strong support move to (TNG episode), oppose disambig. This should redirect to Where no one has gone before. We should never have the capitalization of an article be distinct from the regular article. Patstuart^talk·edits 01:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
   • You do know that "Where no one has gone before" redirects to Where no man has gone before? Besides, there is a link at the top of the episode article. TJ Spyke 22:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Oppose The disambig is not needed. TJ Spyke 22:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose The disambiguation in the article name is unnecessary as the two titles are distinct. I have added a dablink at the top of the article. It is very clear what this article is about regardless. –Pomte 09:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose We don't need a disambig page for only two articles. - Koweja 22:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Stardates

By stardates, "Lonely Among Us" and "Justice" occur before this episode. But as Wesley is an Ensign in both episodes, the stardates are inaccurate.

I don't get it. One, if it says 'A=B' on screen, then A=B. And two, aren't stardates supposed to be nonsensical anyway? Lots42 (talk) 10:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Episode 5???

What happened to Episode 5, or was there ever an Episode 5?

According to http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/library/episodes/TNG/detail/68318.html Episode 5 is "Where No One Has Gone Before".

99.6.136.135 (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)SK

It depends how you view it. The first episode is Encounter at Farpoint Pt.1 On the Star Trek Website It lists both part 1 and part 2 as episode 1. Here on Wikipedia we seem to be listing them as 2 separate episodes altogether. Which, technically, they are.

--Bailo26 01:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The various guides published shortly after the series ended gave the first season 26 episodes, including Farpoint as 2 seperate ones. Its only been since the DVD and Blu Ray releases that the numbering changed as the two part pilot is now listed as a single episode. However, we've gone with the original production information rather than the new sales pitch. Miyagawa (talk) 10:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

-- Hillsc (talk) 20:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

While the wikipedia page for this specific episode was listed as 5 (for reasons given above), the wikipedia pages for the preceding episode also said 5 (and the subsequent page said 7). For wikipedia consistency, I changed this page to say six.

Why does "Static warp bubble" redirect here?

Can someone please explain why "Static warp bubble" redirects here? I don't find any reference to this phrase in the article. 211.25.129.2 (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Where No One Has Gone Before/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 01:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Plot" section: Please link the actors names after the people they play.
• Also, link Wesley Crusher.

• This note is for both the above. I'd included these in the lead, but it doesn't hurt to repeat it in the plot section as well, so both of those are added. Miyagawa (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm glad you noted "Where No One has Gone Before," but please also note the Traveler returns in a later episode which signals the end of Wesley Crusher's appearances on TNG.

• Done. Amusingly enough, Keith DeCandido posted his re-watch of that episode only a week ago. Hopefully he'll move onto DS9 once he's done with TNG as his re-watches in particular are very useful. Miyagawa (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Themes is a little short of a section. I'd suggest it be either expanded or merged into another section.

• Merged it into reception. Miyagawa (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• When you mention Argyle, it isn't immediately clear that LaForge isn't chief engineer yet. You might want to explain this.

• Added. Miyagawa (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Just one duplicate link again (Robert Justman)!

• Found one for Eric Menyuk too, so fixed both. Menyuk incidently retired from acting and now a lawyer. Miyagawa (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• One of the external links is returning a soft 404. Any chance you could check it out?

• Thank goodness for the Wayback Machine! Managed to get an archived version through archive.org. Miyagawa (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• The images appear to be properly licensed. Dab links are fine.
• Similarly to Themes, I think release should be folded into the reception section.

• Changed it to a subsection of reception. Miyagawa (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think you should put some info in the reception section in the lead, so it properly summarizes the entire article.

• Done. Miyagawa (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

On hold pending improvements. —Ed!^(talk) 02:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Great work! Passing the GA. —Ed!^(talk) 02:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)