# Talk:Where No Fan Has Gone Before

As a Welsh speaker, I can tell you that "Dwi wedi meddwi'n llwyr" means "I am completely drunk", not "I am very, very drunk"
That, however, is beside the point, because I'm certain he says "Aye, Dwi wedi meddwi'n chwyl chwil" which is a northern colloquialism for getting very drunk. I think the best translation would be "Yes, I am reeling drunk". I'm not sure that's what the writers wanted him to say, but that's what he does say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.251.0.53 (talk) 20:51 & :53, 16 November 2006

Lest anyone argue that the match is exact, Takei says "Destruct sequence 1-A-2-B-3" while the original was Captain: "1-1-A"; First Officer: "1-1-A-2-B"; Second Officer: "1-B-2-B-3"; Captain: "0-0-0-Destruct-0." BryanEkers 21:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, when he said that, didn't Bender's head explode?Bobo10512 17:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Interactions between the cast appear to reference a couple of themes from George Takei’s autobiography To The Stars.  Firstly, when Melllvar distributes the scripts of his self-penned episode, he does not have enough copies for the entire cast, forcing Takei and Walter Koenig to share.  To me this suggests Takei’s recount of being forced to share a dressing room first with Doohan and then with Koenig, whose arrival Takei initially greeted as an effort to replace him on the show.  Secondly, after Takei is offended by Shatner’s suggestion that he perform a karate chop, he asks if Shatner has ever seen him demonstrate karate.  Shatner responds that Takei does not speak about himself; Takei moans that Shanter should have asked to speak with him.  This is a reoccurring theme throughout Takei’s autobiography: the distance which Shatener appeared to keep himself from getting to know his cast mates despite their best motivations. (207.81.164.238 20:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC))

There's a couple more references that aren't noted in the article, that Goodman does note in the episode audio commentary. One of them escapes me, but the other is that the opening line "The impossible has happened," said by Shatner, is the same opening line of the very first ST:TOS episodes. He says on the commentary it was a reference so subtle that most people missed it.Also, the redshirt phenomenon is in there twice.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.222.190 (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2007
fixed (67.182.10.151 12:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC))

is there reely an episode where spock get high on spores? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by I am Paranoid (talk • contribs) 02:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

This Side of Paradise (TOS episode) Stardust8212 02:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Should it be added that there is a look into the future of the end of the series when Bender says, "Another Sci-Fi show cancelled before its time"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.231.129.45 (talk) 05:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Unless the creators themselves have stated that this was their intention then it probably doesn't belong here. I think it has been included before and removed as original research. I agree that that was probably the joke they were going for but at the same time if its an obvious joke there is no reason to explain it here. Stardust8212 12:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
You might consider chacking if this wasn't a Firefly reference. Bezier123 17:54, 27 May 2012 (GMT+1)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.11.254.132 (talk) 

Article currently says Melvar "...found the tapes centuries ago." However the exact quote from the show: "Centuries ago the videotaped adventures of the enterprise crew rained down upon my planet..." which does not necessarily signify he is centuries old, rather that he (or others) knew when the tapes fell to the planet. Splitting hairs I know but should be deleted or at least expanded upon. JonBradbury 06:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree and removed it. It's a joke and not well defined in th episode itself. Also we don't need any guessing about Earth years vs Energy being years on this page. Stardust8212 12:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So, does he really hate Star Trek? 
72.222.129.203 21:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Just in case there was something important here that could be tweaked back to the article:
--Duke B. Garland 15:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

A little further detail: DBG removed  a solid block of material (good decision!) including the three section headings. I assume the only change he made was the wise subordination of the headings (which had been at the normal biggest-size-but-one level in the article). Usually it is a better idea in such cases to keep those headings out of the talk page's ToC by converting them to non-section headings (the method of suppressing them in the ToC that keeps open the ability to refactor the talk page into a multi-level structure re-grouping related sections as subsections and sub-subsections etc.), but in this case one of the sections is long enuf that the headings are a usability enhancement. If someone uses the material they should probably make their own copy of it and modify it as needed to further enhance usability, but if there is ever extended discussion of it that is on-topic for this page, its current form should be archived, and a copy of the removed material created as the subpage Talk:Where No Fan Has Gone Before/Marked-up version of 2007 "Removed content" so that referring to portions of it would be more practical. But that's probably about an alternate universe where there is a consensus on WP that the material matters, or about some other wiki that would welcome its being transwikied there.--Jerzy•t 20:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm permitting myself one (non-wiki-)geek comment: could the voluminously contributing author of the removed cultural references have been unaware that "forbidden planet" must be a reference to the 1956 ur-classic Forbidden Planet???--Jerzy•t 20:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd say no; the idea of a "forbidden planet" is reasonably common in science fiction, and was used several times in Star Trek. It may even be a trope preceding the 1956 film, in the form of fictional or historical "forbidden islands," e.g., Napoleon's prison on Elba. There is nothing in the episode which textually or visually specifically references the film (which the creators were certainly aware of; I saw Robbie the Robot on a later episode, I think one involving some large massing of various robots). So if it references this film, it only does so indirectly, via the Star Trek referencing thereof.ScottForschler (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC) 

I really like this list and wish it could have been in the article itself. Not knowing it was here, I just tried to add a reference to the Vasquez Rocks and Omega 3, which was reverted as "unverified," although anyone watching the episode itself can see the obvious resemblance. Plot descriptions generally have no references (and there are none given here), but presumably are put up and left up when anyone who watches the video in question can see its accuracy without need of a secondary source. So I'm a little baffled about why these further points are not included. Is there a WP policy about only including the most important such details, or do they all really need secondary sources--even though for some claims like "the rocks resemble those at Vasquez" no secondary source could possibly be more reliable than simply watching the episode itself? I'm genuinely puzzled here about where the line(s) are being drawn here about what to include, or what to document, or not.ScottForschler (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
They really all need secondary sources. It's not our job to point out what we perceive as similarities, as that would be original research, but rather to point out intended similarities, as supported by reliable sources. Otherwise, how can we know that something we believe to be an intentional reference isn't merely coincidental? DonIago (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

It's probably to trivial to go in the article, but it's interesting that they included the late DeForrest Kelly and simply didn't have him speak, but when James Doohan turned it down, they responded by creating a completely new character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daibhid C (talk • contribs) 16:51, 28 May 2008

IMO of more interest: the article sounds confused, but is correct in calling Welshy an actor not a character. Should be made clearer tho: Welshy is a fictional Star Trek actor, as opposed to some other characters who are fictional versions of real Star Trek actors, and played by the corresponding real actors. --Jerzy•t 20:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


### Spelling: Welshy/Welshie
My survey suggests little basis for either spelling; i doubt IMDb is reliable on char names (presumably often supplied by fans who've heard the name in the work but not seen a full cast list, esp w/ TV), and the start of my Google search 

208 for Welshie OR Welshy Futurama OR " Where No Fan Has Gone Before"
starts with abt 30 sites unrated (for security) by Norton... Specific credible sources would be a very good thing.--Jerzy•t 20:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

He's not a child, he's 34.
that is melllvar's age on his planet, but if that planet can support humans it might be close to earth years.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.123.168 (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2009

Uh, it's a broad parody of a soft-SF show, and you're relying on some unnamed law of nature about how long childhood can last in a species? --Jerzy•t 20:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else see the similarities between Melllvar and Barash from the TNG episode Future Imperfect? -Jaardon (talk) 05:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I just saw this episode for the first time and as someone with a good memory who has seen all the episodes of the original series, I saw quite the number of references not described in this article. Some were unquestionable, while others were quite questionable and I don't have sources for many of them. I actually think this article takes a good path in listing a lot of the references made, without trying to give an exhaustive list.
However, I feel the article is written as if the given list is exhaustive. Perhaps this article could use some rewriting to make it clearer that the given examples are just that, some examples of references in the episode... My name is Jasper (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Where No Fan Has Gone Before/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 01:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi again! Should review quite soon with the GA Cup starting! Johanna(talk to me!) 01:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Comments

In the infobox, change "season four" to "season 4"
I don't think File:Futurama ep65.jpg is necessary. As the design of the Star Trek characters is not a heavy talking point in the article, I would remove it.
First sentence of second paragraph: either remove the comma after "scrapped" or add an "it was" after "and"
I would say "to feature the cast of Star Trek to avoid ambiguity.
Although I think it will be known to most, I would put some indication in the image caption that Shatner's on the left and Nimoy's on the right.
We can discuss this, but maybe a double image with that and File:David A. Goodman by Gage Skidmore 3.jpg?
I would pepper ref 2 throughout that first Production paragraph when it is the source.
The first sentence of the second paragraph, involving the director, got messed up somewhere and is a bit convoluted. Also, I would use another verb than "added" because it makes it sound like it was directly connected to something someone else said.
"William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy recorded..." later in the sentence, it should be "usually" not "using"
I would shorten that subsection to just be "cultural references"
Refs are good per here.
@Miyagawa: Nice work! The only "major" thing for this article is the non-free file up top. Johanna(talk to me!) 03:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Johanna: Thanks for the review. The non-free file isn't a big issue for me, it was simply there from prior to my work on this article and I would agree that it isn't a point of discussion so I've removed it. I've made those edits as suggested and pulled apart the director bit into two separate sentences. Thanks for pointing out that other image, as I'd missed that one - I've inserted it now. Miyagawa (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
@Miyagawa: Wonderful work! Pass. Johanna(talk to me!) 03:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

This probably applies to a bunch of articles, but I've only seen this here, so far. I was about to correct the episode number, then saw this comment: 
"Please do not change. Production order, not airing order, is used here."
I'm leaving it alone, but I don't entirely agree with this decision. I know there are complications like broadcast order being different from the order on DVD releases (Firefly comes to mind), but in cases where there aren't discrepancies, intuitively people are going to think this refers to the broadcast order or episode number on the home release. The very next line is the production code, which can be deciphered pretty easily, so it's not like the information would be lost. I think changing the label from "Episode number" to something like "Broadcast order" (but less awkward sounding) is possibly a cleaner solution.
In this case, this is listed as episode 11, but it is the 12th episode on the home release (and I imagine, but don't actually know that it was broadcast 12th). Actually, I might be opening a can of worms with that point. Somebody would have to do the research.. All I'm saying is that the information is misleading as presented. Maybe it's a different label fix, and some of the information in that comment should be shown to the user. I thought it was wrong when I saw it. Thoughts?
...dissimilar username... (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Given that this is an issue that would affect every single episode's article, I would recommend discussing the matter here rather than on this page. DonIago (talk) 06:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Its romulan, not klingon KhlavKhalash (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

It links to an article about Klingon ships. If that article's incorrect, you should probably discuss the matter at the Talk page for it. DonIago (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I believe this was episode 12 2601:547:8100:4FB0:21D5:416A:26F9:D37F (talk) 05:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

List of Futurama episodes. DonIago (talk) 06:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)