# Talk:Cause and Effect (Star Trek: The Next Generation)

Why is the Bozeman trivia relevant to this article?  See WP:TRIVIA.
Acegikmo1 14:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Bozeman was involved in this episode, it seemed relevant enough (for trivia). - Diceman 16:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph includes the sentence: "When she analyzes the voices, they are found to be that of the crew seconds before the destruction of the Enterprise." It would be very odd for a medical doctor, today or a couple of hundred years in the future, to do signal analysis work. In the show, it was Data and maybe LaForge (I think) who perform the analysis - at the very least, Data gives the rather humorous rundown of what the 1000 or so voices on the recording are talking about (including quite a large number making whoopie - and I'm not referring to Guinan).Jmdeur (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarified. Doniago (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

My wife figured out they went through the loop about 38 times (presuming a 12 hour time span between Picard doing the log entry and the explosion)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.220.192 (talk) 05:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC) 

Whilst I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF, I'm a little non-plussed as to why this particular episode has been singled out as not being notable, when the other 178 episodes of ST:TNG are fine.
What is it about this particular episode that dips it under the notability marker?  Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The question you should be asking is what is it about the other episodes that makes them notable. The easiest course of resolution would be to provide sources, and given this episode has ranked high in viewers' polls and such, hopefully sources can be provided. In the meantime, perhaps the tag will draw additional attention to the problem with this article. DonIago (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, perhaps it would - except you haven't answered the question and explained what you think the problem is.  It's all well and good saying "sources are needed" - but sources for what?  I ask you again - why do you think this particular episode falls below the notability radar when all others are fine?  What is the intrinsic difference between this episode article and, for example, The Survivors, or The Chase?  Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Sources establishing that this episode is in some manner considered significant by sources unaffiliated with the franchise. Sources that establish the episode gained some degree of attention outside Star Trek episode review fansites, for instance. And I never said I think all others are fine. In fact, I think it's very likely that many other episode articles are not fine, but I don't get paid enough for my editing here (that's a joke), to go through every episode article and tag all of the ones I think need improvement. DonIago (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Regardless, three different editors have taken issue with the template.  Continual re-insertion is bordering on wp:idht and editwarring, and could be considered disruptive.  Whether you think you are right or not, remember that edit-warring doesn't care about right or wrong, only that it's happening.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Consensus isn't a matter of a vote. Please provide a policy-based rationale for how this individual episode's notability has been established. DonIago (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
What?  Nobody's voted on anything.  There have been three voices in the debate over whether the template is deserving, and two are against it.  Also, I'm mistaken - only two editors have reverted you, so I've struck that comment.  However, I've suggested a compromise, and added the {{refimprove}} template.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm okay with that; I just hope it will lead to some tangible improvement of the article. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cause and Effect (Star Trek: The Next Generation)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 02:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Second on my "to review" list. Johanna(talk to me!) 02:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments
"who sought to write a different type of time travel related plot" different than what?
I would rephrase the first sentence of the third lead paragraph, possibly splitting it into two sentences.
There's no previous mention of the Bozeman, so please specify.
First sentence of production: remove "but"
"Cast member Frakes..." I would repeat his full name here without linking it. In addition "prepped for it" is a little vague.
Second sentence of that paragraph: use a verb other than "add" because there isn't an established topic yet.
"Following a discussion with the director of photography..." The current placement of this sentence is a little random, if you ask me. Also, put the subject first so it is clear you are not talking about Frakes.
"It had been planned" a better phrase would be "the crew planned"
I would specify if those novels are official or non-official, canon/non-canon.
Refs appear to be working correctly, and I do not have any concerns about the reliability of sources.
@Miyagawa: That's all for this article. Nice work so far! Johanna(talk to me!) 00:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Johanna: Thanks for reviewing, I would have responded quicker but I got caught up in a couple of Welsh projects. I think I've made all the edits you've suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
@Miyagawa: Wonderful. Pass. Johanna(talk to me!) 17:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Here is online article from MSN.com at “Is This a Joke?” How a Classic ‘Star Trek’ Episode Broke the Rules of the Franchise.  Rjluna2 (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)