# Talk:Star Trek: Discovery season 2

Acceptable poster? -- AlexTW 10:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Upon reverting a reorganization of the content, this edit comment stated: I believe it is too early to split the information up like that, especially the writing section, plus development should be in chronological order so it can show progression. The lead is consistent with the rest of the topic and follows a standard style, so the format change is unnecessary
I agree that each section needs to maintain chronological order to show progression, just as you say. And for precisely that reason, the information needs to be reorganized under narrower subsection headers, as the reverted edits did.
As it stands, the paragraphs are excessively long (see WP:PARAGRAPH), and each one includes statements on multiple topics such as:

announcements concerning season renewal
showrunner and staff changes
continuity choices (anthology, story arc, episodic)
thematic goals for the season
The article presently maintains chronological order under section headings that are too broad. The result is that each paragraph reads like a list of loosely-related events. Lumping them all together chronologically only impedes the reader's understanding, because each topic gets briefly addressed and quickly abandoned until the middle of the next paragraph.
I don't think it's ever "too early to split" disorganized WP:PARAGRAPHs of that kind, so that each paragraph and subsection can successfully convey information on a single topic, and chronological order is maintained under each section header.  That's what my edits attempted to do.  If you think it's too early, then at least we're in agreement that it's ultimately going to be necessary.  Why not now? Lwarrenwiki (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

If there is an issue, then you took it to the opposite extreme. I am happy to work on improving this, but again I do believe it is too early to get too specific about article structure—only one episode is out so far! Until the season has been completely released, the page is going to be in flux and trying to settle on the best final layout is premature. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@Adamstom.97: I admit that my edit was bold, but it was done carefully and with substantial time & thought put into it, so I wasn't expecting an immediate outright revert. Now we're in the "discuss" part of the WP:CYCLE, and I'm glad you're willing to work on this. And I'll be happy to work with you on structural improvements, and to roll them out in a more incremental fashion next time. Since the season must be very close to wrapping production now, I see no benefit to be gained by putting off improvements to the "Production" section until the season finale airs. New production-related facts will emerge over time as the season airs, but much more of the article's growth and "flux" would be in other areas (e.g., "Episodes"). Lwarrenwiki (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I do appreciate the work that you put into the edit, and the willingness to improve the article, even if I disagree with the changes. I think the production section will be in flux because it is highly likely that we will be finding out new things for the writing, casting, design, effects, and music sections after each episode. The only section that is likely to remain mostly stable from now is the development section, and that is already ordered chronologically and with logical paragraph gaps: firstly we have some background information regarding the initial development and plans to give context to the rest of the production section without readers having to go to the season 1 or series pages; then we have the first info on this season specifically, with all of the plans and ideas from the producers before the season was actually renewed and leading up to that announcement; and finally we have the firing of the showrunners and everything that happened because of that, including other crew changes, the way the schedule was affected, and the episode count change. For now, I think we just need to add information to the other sections as we learn it, and we can start to reorganise things as the state of those become clear. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
And I appreciate the considerable work you put into creating the article, and that your good faith stewardship hasn't crossed the line into ownership. In that spirit, perhaps you can give some further thought to finding portions of my edit where we can reach consensus, by identifying where your objections are based on WP:POLICY rather than personal preference. Thanks. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@Adamstom.97: More than a month later, and halfway into the season, it seems that the apprehension that "the production section will be in flux" has not happened. After six aired episodes, only about three sentences and one new paragraph were added to the large Production section. That turns out to be the actual extent of "new things for the writing, casting, design, effects, and music sections after each episode." You suggested that we wait for "the state of those [to] become clear", and so we did. I don't see any remaining reason for further delay in improving the organization of the article, and I'll be implementing the previously discussed edits shortly. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
We cannot know what the article is going to look like until after it has finished airing. I have also been unable to edit the article as often as I would have liked over the last month or so, so additions that I will be making have yet to happen. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Just watched the two mini-episodes, the second being co-written by well-known author Michael Chabon.  I'm not sure how to the fit them into the chronology; on my cable TV page, they appear as episodes 1.1 and 2.1.
Before I forget, plot summaries, I'll look around for titles & other credits:
1.1 A creature which can become invisible escapes from a piece of space debris brought aboard Discovery's loading bay.  It has an encounter with Tilly in the otherwise-deserted cafeteria, causing the food processors to malfunction and fling food everywhere. It turns out to be a female humanoid. Tilly strikes up a relationship and their conversation continues in her quarters; they discover that they have several things in common.  The creature reveals that she has discovered a way to synthesize dilithium, and that her parents and brother have died. Tilly decides to use the transporter to send her home; as she is departing, the creature reveals that her father was the king of her homeland, and with his death, she is now the queen.
1.2 An escape pod is hurtling through space carrying a single near-death occupant. Discovery brings it aboard with tractor beams.  Its inhabitant, later revealed to be a soldier, finds that Discovery is empty and has been stationary for a thousand years, following orders to await the return of the crew.  In the meantime, the ship's computer has evolved itself and attained intelligence and sentience. The lone soldier and the computer strike up a relationship and end up re-enacting a scene from classic dance movie Funny Face, with the computer taking the role played by Audrey Hepburn.  In the end, the computer decides to send the lone soldier home on the ship's last remaining shuttle, which the computer has christened Funny Face; they exchange heartfelt farewells. Tim Bray (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

TimBray, you may be interested in the article Star Trek: Short Treks... -- /Alex/21 07:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I notice that we have summaries for the first four episodes.
But not for Saints of Imperfection, or The Sounds of Thunder: the two most recently broadcast episodes.
Despite the fact the release date, writers and directors sections have been filled in.
Is it possible to correct that?
Cuddy2977 (talk) 08:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Certainly. There's nothing stopping you from adding them. -- /Alex/21 09:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Most of the characters in this show have a military rank. However, these ranks are sometimes ignored in the summaries. I'd like to establish a style whereby, on first reference, we refer to characters using their full ranks and their full names with a link to that character's Wikipedia page if one exists. Then, on second reference, we should use the shortest names possible without ranks or a link reference. To prevent reader confusion, this style should be applied for each summary rather than the entire page. 
Here's how it would look in practice: Commander Michael Burnham sought the advice of her close friend, Commander Saru, on how to negotiate with the Ba'ul. Saru said that would be impossible because the Ba'ul are amoral. Note that Saru doesn't have a WP link because no WP page exists on him. 
Please give me your opinions. Lechonero (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Lechonero: I think that would be verbose and unnecessary. It seems like overkill to state the rank in every episode summary. Similarly, I don't believe every summary needs to state each character's full name with a link. However, I would support an addition of ranks to the Cast and characters section. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I am against the addition of ranks to the episode summary unless it is imperative to understanding the plot, since these summaries are so short and do not have room for extraneous details. The only times this is generally necessary are if we are discussing a Captain, for example, since that rank comes with significant differences in role on the show. I am even more against the addition of ranks to the cast and characters section, for the same reason that they have not been included in most film and TV articles that I am familiar with: rank is not part of a character's name, and is something that can change and so trying to explain that in a simple cast list gets too confusing and unnecessary. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

User 193.114.117.128
In the reffered links last episode is mentioned as “Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2”.   
http://trekcore.com/blog/2019/04/new-photos-star-trek-discovery-season-finale-such-sweet-sorrow-part-2/ 
https://trekmovie.com/2019/04/13/star-trek-discovery-co-showrunner-says-season-2-finale-will-provide-answers-to-the-shows-mysteries/
So, there is two episodes (part 1&2) Lado85 (talk) 09:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
So why is episode 13 called "Such Sweet Sorrow" and episode 14 is called "Such Sweet Sorrow Part 2?"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.84.43.10 (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC) 

They are Parts 1 and 2 of the same two-hour episode, the episode titled "Such Sweet Sorrow". Adding "Part 2" does not make it a separate episode. As stated here, the episode has the same team, "as this finale expanded from an originally-planned one hour to two". It's the same episode, just in two parts. 193.115.73.252 (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
http://www.thefutoncritic.com/showatch/star-trek-discovery/listings// This is reliable source. And there is two episodes Such Sweet Sorrow and Such Sweet Sorrow. Part 2. It was originally planned as one, but then splitted to two episodes. Can you understand this? 14:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Try to sign your posts properly. And yes, I fully understand. There is one episode, "Such Sweet Sorrow", originally planned as one, but then split into two parts. Hence, there is one episode, and two parts over two weeks. They certainly can't list down the same title twice, hence today's episode, "Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2", is the second part of the "Such Sweet Sorrow" episode. Please wait for your discussion to come to a close and a consensus gained for your situation. Also, deliberately removing sources before the episode has been released is destructive and disruptive editing. 193.115.73.252 (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
See the recent additions to the article. "While planning this, the writers realized that they could not do justice to it all within a single episode's length. It was around this time that CBS added an additional episode to the season's order, which allowed the writers to expand their finale plans to a two-part season finale. Executive producer Michelle Paradise compared the scope of the finale to a feature film." The two-part finale is one episode, a film-like episode, split over two weeks. 193.115.73.252 (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
It makes more sense for Such Sweet Sorrow to be renamed "Such Sweet Sorrow Part 1" if it is two episodes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.84.43.10 (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
There is no episode titled "Part 1". 193.115.73.252 (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Actually, the official Star Trek website officially uses "Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 1", including in their recap of the episode. I have also added explanation to the production section of how the finale was split into two episode during production so this is all explained to the readers. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
So, you support the merge into a single "Such Sweet Sorrow" row? 193.115.73.252 (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I support the use of the two-part format, in fact I was the first to implement it. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Could I understand, please, why does not Sara Mitich appear in recurrent or even notable characters? According to IMDB, she played in 7 episodes this season. Thank you. IKhitron (talk) 13:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Like the other members of the bridge crew in this show she is not a guest star, so she isn't listed in the recurring guests or notable guests columns. All recurring/notable co-stars are listed in the casting section though, so you will find her there. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank for your answer, but I still do not know why. IKhitron (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it. She isn't a guest star and the cast section is only for series regulars and guest stars. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
In this series only? I can see a lot of people in other shows articles. IKhitron (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
For all series that follow MOS:TVCAST. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, this just means that all the rest are wrong. IKhitron (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't like how this is phrased at all. It states that it is a fact when it has been debunked that it was ever an actual legal requirement. I think it needs to be rephrased to state plainly that the designers were mistaken in their understanding and it was not a legal requirement. oknazevad (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

We know they were instructed to change 25% and apparently complied. If you have a source that it turned out to be a misunderstanding of the law by their legal council you can add it in the end - how about: "The design was changed after receiving legal council. The council was later found out to be given in error, but the production decided to keep the new design." DGtal (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
That fact is ready in the article. My point is that it is phrased as though the instruction was based on a legal requirement when that turned out to be a misunderstanding by the designers, which is only obliquely corrected in the way it's phrased here. Stating something along the lines of "the designers misunderstood that the instruction to make it look different was based on a legal requirement" is what I'm looking for. oknazevad (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
The fact that it was allegedly a "misunderstanding" doesn't change the fact that the designers were told "the Enterprise for Discovery had to be 25% different" due to "legal" reasons. The article is just laying out the facts. According to the designers themselves, they were "required to redesign the USS Enterprise for Star Trek: Discovery, making it 25 percent different" and this was "due to legal concerns regarding the ownership of different Star Trek elements". CBS later said they had full legal rights to the original designs so we make that clear as well. Even if we wanted to try use different wording, we should not remove "making it 25 percent different", as you wanted to, because they still did make it 25 percent different whether for legal or design reasons. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
That they thought that's what they were told is a fact. That they were actually told that was their mistake, which they later corrected. We shouldn't be saying that they were told that because they said outright they were mistaken. That's my problem with the way it's currently written. Plus, as I said before, design changes like that are not quantifiable, so their misunderstanding is compounded by their own description of an impossible order. In short, we shouldn't write something that was untrue as if it were a fact. They were never actually told that, they made a mistake and stated as such plainly (and as someone who works in the industry, such misunderstandings happen a lot). oknazevad (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Do you have a source to support that or is that your interpretation of the current source? Because there is nothing in the current source claiming that they were not told to make it 25 percent different, only a CBS statement about how there is no legal requirement to make it 25 percent different. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Just the correction to the source itself, and the fact that they deleted the tweet. The bulk of the news story cited as a source was written before the correction was appended to it and so represents the incorrect info. We can't quote it as is, as it doesn't represent the actual facts. That's why there's a correction on it and said correction is above the original article text. That the site issued a correction is why we hold them as reliable and not just clickbait, but it also means that the corrected story itself specifically is no longer suitable as a source. That's just how writing from sources works. oknazevad (talk) 04:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
But the correction does not refute the part of the claim that you are trying to remove. The designers said they were required to make the ship 25% different for legal reasons, and CBS later stated that there were no legal barriers to using the original design while acknowledging that changes had been made anyway. They also apparently told the designers to take down their post, but no one said that the parts of the post that were not refuted by CBS are also untrue. That would be a big assumption to make. If you are still unsure about the original statement then perhaps a compromise could be to use some more cautious wording: John Eaves and Scott Schneider, designers of the starships for the series, redesigned the USS Enterprise for Star Trek: Discovery. They claimed that they were required to make it 25 percent different from Matt Jefferies' original design due to legal concerns regarding the ownership of different Star Trek elements. CBS later explained that they were free to reuse Jefferies' design in Star Trek: Discovery, but design changes were made for the series to take advantage of modern visual effects. Thoughts? - adamstom97 (talk) 05:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)