# Talk:Star Trek: The Next Generation season 1

Will Wheaton and Michael Dorn didn't play recurring roles during the first season, but main characters. There were nine actors in the main cast, not seven.--Chamarasca (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Two official sources state otherwise. Miyagawa (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I apologise for my poor English. Look at the very credits of the chapters. I think they are official sources. I am writing a similar article in Spanish WP.--Chamarasca (talk) 12:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The section here needs some further expansion - they've both been included as main characters in the List of Star Trek: The Next Generation cast members. There were nine main cast actors, not seven - Worf and Wesley were only originally meant to be recurring not main, but became main cast after "Encounter at Farpoint". Miyagawa (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The first five episodes have rather verbose summaries and the rest have one or two sentence summaries at best. It's not clear why the first five deserve longer summaries, or the rest don't.
However based on what I've seen elsewhere on Wikipedia (shows like the X-Files or Firefly), it appears that the shorter summaries are preferred. Any objections to shortening the first five summaries? 87Fan (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

None at all, in fact if you go back into the history of the article you'll see the shorter versions. At the time it was suggested they should be larger, and so I started expanding them but I got distracted with other tasks and never finished. You're right though, the X-Files ones are shorter and that is probably the style we should aim for. Miyagawa (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Done! 87Fan (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
What is so problematic about longer synopses? As for examples, The X-Files and Firefly episodes need a little more expansion in a brief manner, and pages of Firefly episodes are poor. --George Ho (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Well the second season article is currently up at WP:GAN, so I'll roll whatever changes are asked for there back into the season one article (as once this is a GA too, then we can get the entire first season up as the project's first good topic). Miyagawa (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
BTW, nothing is wrong with long synopses. The problem was their uneven nature. We decided to be consistent within our own article and settled on short, but could be convinced to go long. I'm a fan of Miyagawa's proposal to see what the outcome of the Good Article nomination is (good luck!) 87Fan (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Star Trek: The Next Generation (season 1)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I will take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

It was the first live-action television series in the franchise to be broadcast since Star Trek: The Original Series - I'd add something about the year the first series concluded its last season.
The characters in the series gradually changed during preproduction, with adjustments made to the names of some characters. remove one "character" from the sentence
Such were the troubles that the series had trouble recruiting potential writers halfway through the season - ditto "trouble"
Paramount executives began to work on ideas to bring Star Trek back to television,[1] hiring writer/producer Greg Strangis to develop some ideas - ditto "ideas"
Although they hadn't planned on it originally,  - unabbreviate
After Fontana continued to opposed lower than the rates dictated by WGA rates, Roddenberry brought his personal lawyer, Leonard Maizlish to argue his case - the grammar is awry methinks...
These featured several minor differences in the names - from the eventual names? or somesuch?
Earwig's copyvio clear
Thanks, I've edited out those issues having made the changes as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Couple of queries - any cast quit after season 1, and were there any proposed episodes that didn't make it to air? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh my god. I missed out Denise Crosby leaving didn't I? I'll get that added - I wrote so much about it elsewhere that I forgot to add it here! The Gates McFadden departure I've already included on the season 2 article, as with "Blood and Fire" which was the famous episode which didn't get included in the first two seasons. I'll post another note here when I've added the Crosby paragraph. Miyagawa (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I've fixed that utter blunder. I honestly cannot believe I left that out. I also decided while editing that it was worthwhile mentioning that McFadden was fired at the end of the first season, but unlike the second season article I didn't go into her replacement etc. Miyagawa (talk) 09:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
1. Well written?:

Prose quality: 
Manual of Style compliance: 
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources: 
Citations to reliable sources, where required: 
No original research: 
3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects: 
Focused: 
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias: 
5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA): 
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall: 

Pass or Fail:  - great, well done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

"Relatively unheard of" is two different and contradictory thoughts. I'm not sure which one is correct, but someone who knows should collapse this into a thought that makes sense. It would make more sense as "relatively uncommon," "almost unheard of" or even "unheard of." --Steven Fisher (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The airdates aren't correct and don't match up with the dates on the episode pages. It looks like a previous edit has changed them to match the dates on the Nelisen ratings citation, but those dates give the week start, not the airdate (which it says at the bottom). I tried to change them, but the edit got immediately reverted. It looks like this has happened across TNG's episode listings. 2A02:8012:6624:0:70C3:DD55:241B:266B (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Where are your reliable sources to support your changes?  - FlightTime (open channel) 22:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
The episode airdates prior to the edit on 00:10, 1 August 2023‎, which then match with the dates on the individual episode pages. and are then consistent with the other info on the page, e.g. the original release start date. However, it might be that those airdates were wrong - in which case the episode pages need changing. It seems like syndication meant the airdate could differ? 2A02:8012:6624:0:70C3:DD55:241B:266B (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Sources?, an explanation will not work.    - FlightTime (open channel) 22:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)