Template:Did you know nominations/Lincoln Enterprises

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by — Maile (talk) 14:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Lincoln Enterprises

(

)

~~... that staff could not re-use old footage during the third season of Star Trek, as it had been taken by Gene Roddenberry and Majel Barrett for Lincoln Enterprises?~~

Reviewed: Spotted wood kingfisher
Comment: For September 8th, the Star Trek 50th anniversary.

Created by Miyagawa (talk). Self-nominated at 14:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC).

What staff? And the source apparently says that a security guard said this to someone -- not sure that should be presented as straight fact. E Eng 19:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

As the article says, film editor Don Rode. However, I didn't feel this was needed for the DYK hook since that name would be unknown to Trekkies and non-fans alike. Would this alt be better:

ALT1 ... that staff could not re-use old footage during the third season of Star Trek, as according to a security guard, it had been taken by Gene Roddenberry and Majel Barrett for Lincoln Enterprises?

Miyagawa (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

How about

ALT2 ... that when a third-season Star Trek film editor sought old footage for reuse in an upcoming episode, he was told that Lincoln Enterprises had transported it out of the storage vault?

No issues found with article, ready for human review.
- ✓ This article is new and was created on 14:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- ✓ This article meets the DYK criteria at 3507 characters
- ✓ All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
- ✓ This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
- ✓ A copyright violation is unlikely (1.0% confidence; confirm)
  - Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
No overall issues detected
- ✓ The hook ALT0 is an appropriate length at 157 characters
- ✓ The hook ALT1 is an appropriate length at 188 characters
- ✓ The hook ALT2 is an appropriate length at 177 characters
- ✓ Miyagawa has more than 5 DYK credits. A QPQ review of Template:Did you know nominations/Spotted wood kingfisher was performed for this nomination.

Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This bot is experimental; please report any issues. This is not a substitute for a human review. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 23:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't link to both the season and the overall series -- one is enough. E Eng 19:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Works for me. Striking the first two. Miyagawa (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Full review still needed by human reviewer. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Human being checking i, I agree with the bot assessment and I will look at the other issues that a bot cannot check for. MPJ-DK 22:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Miyagawa: a couple of issues with the hook.
The hook says "Lincoln Enterprises" removed it, the article states "Rodenberry and Barrett" and that's what is sourced in the article. In fact there is no asertion in the article that the film was sold afterwards, just that it was removed to prevent destruction, that's not the same thing. So hook is not actually in the article as stated.
Also at the time it would not have been known as "Lincoln Enterprises" but as "Star Trek Enterprises" right?

Once these issues have been addressed I'd be happy to review again. MPJ-DK 22:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, struck Alt2 and made the article more explicit about the sales thing. The Lincoln/Star Trek moniker is problematic as I haven't been able to nail down a source which states when the name was actually changed, only that it was. The problem is that Roddenberry's rather revisionist view of history (in which Bjo Trimble never ran the company on her own, despite everyone else saying that she did). So perhaps to get around that, I could suggest this as a different format/direction for the hook (although I want to call her a superfan - she's credited with saving Star Trek, and even now is a speaking guest at the official conventions in Las Vegas):

ALT3 ... that as part of the efforts to see Star Trek renewed for a third season, fan Bjo Trimble created the company that would later become Lincoln Enterprises? Miyagawa (talk) 07:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmm there is the statement in the artice of a possible differet origin of the "Star Trek Enterprises" company? MPJ-DK 20:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I can't believe you're giving up so easily on the transporter (Star Trek) joke. But there are disappointments in every hooker's career, I suppose. E Eng 23:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
@Miyagawa: - any progress on this? Since the article itself offers another possible origin (outside of the "Roddenbery Rewrite") I think the hook would be problematic. I think the fact that it was launched selling actual props from the sets is the most interesting part, there has got to be some gold to be mined in that subject that is also sourced? MPJ-DK 00:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the initial message from the 18th. How about switching back to that - the concern about it was the Star Trek/Lincoln name in use at the time. So how about:

ALT4 ... that old footage could not be re-used during the third season of Star Trek, as according to a security guard, it had been taken by Gene Roddenberry and Majel Barrett, and was later sold as film clips by Lincoln Enterprises?

Happy to add an ALT5 with the transporter bit added back in if you like. Miyagawa (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It's been a long road, going from there to here huh? I think that one has potential, looks sourced and covered in the article at first look. I will give it another check over to see if this can get the ol' Tick. MPJ-DK 22:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

So let's get this one completed, full review

As the bot has already verified - age, size, general sourcing is covered, I see no copyvio issues either. QPQ checks out (and has already run)
It reads well, the hook is cited in the article (AGF on the source since I do not have access to the book) and it is neutral
The article does not give a clear date of when they moved from Star Trek Enterprises to Lincoln Enterprises - almost reads like it started out as Lincoln E, then Start Trek E, then back to Lincoln Enterprises?

has been earned on this one Miyagawa, Not sure if we actually have more hooks than slots for September 8?? MPJ-DK 22:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Very sorry, MPJ-DK, Miyagawa, but ALT4 clocks in at 223 characters, far too long for DYK. I've struck it. If you aren't going with ALT3 (which hasn't been struck but perhaps should have been?), then it needs to be short enough. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

- Ah dang it, did not remember to look at that again. MPJ-DK 23:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Let's try: ALT5 ... that after Gene Roddenberry and Majel Barrett transported some old Star Trek footage from a film vault, it was sold as film clips by Lincoln Enterprises? Any good? Miyagawa (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

- 150 characters long and I will have some faith in the intelligence of our readers to know that they did not literally "beam them out" of the vault. The two facts (removed film, later sold) are both supported by inline citations. MPJ-DK 10:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure EEng will be ecstatic that the "transported" joke is back, but I think the wikilink to the Trek transporter is unnecessary and a step too far, so I have removed it. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's better without the link rubbing it in your face. I further edited ALT5 to not imply that the vault was sold as film clips. Now excuse me while I go writhe in ecstasy. E Eng 16:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)