Talk:Where no man has gone before

message: Here's the good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: If you're a Trekkie, it's delightful. Still good if it's not.
:2. Factually accurate?: Aggressively footnoted.
:3. Broad in coverage?: Wow. Had no idea this quote had such legs.
:4. Neutral point of view?: Ok.
:5. Stability?: Ok.
:6. Images?: Fair use of screenshot ok.
I think it's a good article. Congrat's! — Kghusker 12:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article Nomination History

message: From the introduction:
"The Star Trek character Zefram Cochrane, who was the first to fly at warp speed, supposedly originated the phrase in a speech which described what humans could do with this new warp technology. He utters the phrase in the first episode of the Trek prequel series Star Trek: Enterprise."
(Emphasis added.)
Would it not be better to say, "who was the first human to fly at warp speed"? --Chris 21:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes indeed! As everyone knows, the Vulcans landed because they detected Cochrane's warp signature. 🖖 – AndyFielding (talk) 07:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Pedantry rides again

message: Would the origin of the rest of the opening narration be on-topic for this page?  There are a number of memos regarding its creation flying around in August 1966 (some of the interim versions were, um, interesting).  Was amused to see : "Space: Endless. Silent. Waiting", one of the proposals, pops up in Starship Exeter's narraton.  Morwen - Talk 08:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. I mean, we already discuss the in-universe history of the complete narration. Its real-world history would be a great addition! Provided of course it has references ;) -- Ritchy 15:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  rest of quote 

message: This quote is from Star Trek, and this page is mostly important in a Star Trek context. Given this, shouldn't the section explaining the quote in Star Trek come first? I mean, the origins of the quote are of course important, but most people will want to learn why the quote is so commonly used today (i.e. the Star Trek stuff) before knowing where it originated from. -- Ritchy 19:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of the page

message: As per the manual of style, I rewrote the trivia list of that section into a coherent text, and added references. I had to cut some of the trivia that didn't fit in the text. Here it is:
* The pilot episode of Futurama, "Space Pilot 3000", begins with a parody of Star Trek's title sequence. It opens with a shot of a spaceship flying through space while the opening notes of the Star Trek theme play, and the character Fry then narrates "Space, it seems to go on and on forever..." 
* In the Babylon 5 episode "Voices of Authority", the character of Ivanova told Sheridan, who was about to have a sexual adventure with his political officer, "I think you're about to go where everyone has gone before".
* The character of Garth says the line in the movie Wayne's World.
-- Ritchy 19:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Exploiting strange new worlds?  Seeking out new technology and business opportunities?  Boldly going where no goblin has gone before?"
Click the javascript disclosure named "Progress" on that Wowhead webpage to see this quote in its context.
Presenting this here because I feel I better shouldn't just add it to the article without further inquiry, as mentioning World of Warcraft in every other article (exaggeratingly speaking) may seem unsuitable or undesirable to some people.
--Harl (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Usage in popular culture

message: The video game World of Warcraft, more precisely the progress dialogue of the Quest named You're Hired! added in 2007, includes a reference to the Star Trek quotation.
:"Exploiting strange new worlds?  Seeking out new technology and business opportunities?  Boldly going where no goblin has gone before?"
Click the javascript disclosure named "Progress" on that Wowhead webpage to see this quote in its context.
Presenting this here because I feel I better shouldn't just add it to the article without further inquiry, as mentioning World of Warcraft in every other article (exaggeratingly speaking) may seem unsuitable or undesirable to some people.
--Harl (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  World of Warcraft 

message: As discussed at WP:IPC, when discussing "in popular culture" style information, citations should be included that not only confirm the existence of the reference but establish that it is considered significant in some manner. I think this section probably needs to be reviewed to confirm that the sources are in fact establishing the significance of the occurrences.
Put another way, if the tree falls in the woods but nobody hears it, it shouldn't be discussed in this section. DonIago (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup may be needed

message: A skit titled "Booze Trek" ran at least once on the Dr. Demento Show. Here's a transcript, with plenty of typos. http://www.tealdragon.net/humor/startrek/booze.htm "Booze, the wino frontier. These are the voyagers of the barship Bourbonprize. Its five-beer mission: To explore strange new clubs, to seek out new girls and new habitizations...to boldly go where no lush has gone before."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 07:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Parody

message: In the article, footnotes 4, 5, 6, and 7 are split into two lines, the first containing nothing but the "^" symbol, and the second line containing the rest of the reference, but beginning with a square. This is wrong. I suspect that the problem lies in the Wiki programming somewhere. There appears to be a subroutine for references to Memory Alpha articles, and it appears that that's where the error lies. Can someone check it and fix it? Thanks. --Keeves (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memory Alpha references 

message: This may be original research, but, I have found at least one usage of a similar phrase in a story published prior to Star Trek and the White House document. In H. P. Lovecraft's novella, The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath  this passage is found: "At length, sick with longing for those glittering sunset streets and cryptical hill lanes among ancient tiled roofs, nor able sleeping or waking to drive them from his mind, Carter resolved to go with bold entreaty whither no man had gone before, and dare the icy deserts through the dark to where unknown Kadath, veiled in cloud and crowned with unimagined stars, holds secret and nocturnal the onyx castle of the Great Ones."
Does anyone think this should be included? Orville Eastland (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! At first, I only saw the "no man had gone before", but your quote has the "go" and "bold", too! My opinion is that this should be allowed under the No Original Research rules. No Original Research does not refer to the method by which you found this quote. It refer to conclusions which are drawn from documented sources. If you would claim that this was the inspiration for the Star Trek phrase, and your source was that you heard it from Roddenberry personally, that would be Original Research. But if you simply say "I found this phrase in a really old book", that's okay. --Keeves (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the "origin of the quote" outside the TV series and any link with its use in the series appears to be speculation (unless Peeples gives a source), shouldn't this section header be renamed as something not quite so specific? Mighty Antar (talk) 23:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a given that it is speculation.  As of July 20, 2008, the book itself was cited.  That is use of a primary source, NOT original research.  It is cited for 1) that a passage is in the book, and 2) publication date.  No interpretation is being made.  NOR does not require us to be blind to what is in front of our faces.  IMHO (talk) 08:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure which cite you are referring to. What I'm saying is that unless Peeples (who introduced the phrase to the series) states somewhere in something that we can cite, that he lifted the phrase from the Introduction to Outer Space leaflet rather than that he invented it, we are talking about a coincidence. The TSR article is simply a suggestion for an "origin of the quote" and does not provide anything beyond speculation. On the basis of that article, you can't state that the leaflet is the origin of the quote, only that it might be. This may seem like splitting hairs, but in the context of this article about the quote, in a section defining the 'origin of the quote' accuracy is critical.Mighty Antar (talk) 12:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the phrase prior to Star Trek

message: Howdy all. Recently I removed the "refimprove" parameter from the  template in this article. In my opinion, the number of citations that were in the article did not warrant having that parameter in the template. I was reverted and notified. I think that the article would benefit from more cited references, but I don't think the parameter is necessarily needed. What are other people's thoughts on the matter?--Rockfang (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: After a cursory inspection, while the article does have multiple issues, the only problem I saw with citations was an unreferenced quotation. I would not contest removal of the refimprove parameter, though that quotation needs to either be sourced or removed. It's the alternate form of the spiel by...Black, I think? Doniago (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I have removed the content you were referring to. I have also removed the parameter.--Rockfang (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The refimprove parameter in the multiple issues template 

message: Does this article really need an exhaustive list of every time this phrase shows up in the franchise? I think not, but figured I'd pose the question here before I remove and summarize it. --EEMIV (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As with all cases of popular culture listcruft, my recommendation is to limit such incidents to those for which third-party sourcing establishing that the occurrence was considered significant in some manner can be provided. DonIago (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

text: OPPOSE I can't see a valid reason to delete so many editors' contributions. This article needs those information to be informative. I've reverted the article to its original version pending a community consensus in the talk page. 125.168.97.231 (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia articles should not contain indiscriminate lists. This is also discussed at WP:IPC. If you'd like to propose some criteria for inclusion we can do that, but if not then I will stick with my original recommendation that all entries lacking third-party sourcing establishing their significance be removed. DonIago (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Additionally, "so many editors" have contributed much to many other articles that were thoroughly culled, rewritten, or even deleted; lots of prior work, even well-intentioned, isn't sufficient reason to retain content. Additionally, "it's informative" doesn't hold muster as a reason to retain a poor article, let alone poor sections of an article. --EEMIV (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

text: CONCUR with removal/summarization. -P shadoh (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

text: CONCUR with removal. You wouldn't expect an article to list everytime Spock said "fascinating" would you? Miyagawa (talk) 13:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be a fascinating article! Not really. Also, we seem to have a reasonable consensus at this point, so . DonIago (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  List 

message: Curiously, Eric Partridge in his Usage and Abusage, when discussing the split infinitive, wrote; "Avoid the split infinitive wherever possible; but if it is the clearest and the most natural construction, use it boldly. The angels are on our side." It is not known whether Partridge used the words "boldly" and "angels" as a oblique reference to Star Trek but it is unlikey, Usage and Abusage was first published in 1947, well before Star Trek was even a twinkling. 
  Jodosma (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: And this is relevant because…? – AndyFielding (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to Eric Partridge

message: My understanding, grammatically speaking, is that colons should be followed by capitals. There for it should be either
Space; the final frontier.
Or
Space: The final frontier. RBJ (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You're wrong about a colon being followed by capitals. I both Googled the phrase and reviewed MOS:COLON. There is some disagreement as to the exact formulation of the quote though, FWIW. DonIago (talk) 16:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh goody, I'm glad this came up somewhere. Text after a colon starts with a capital when the text is a complete sentence. When it's not a complete sentence (and you may need to know a bit of grammar for that, if intuition doesn't serve), it's not capitalized. This is pretty standard. Cheers! – AndyFielding (talk) 08:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colon versus semi colon