Talk:Star Trek movie curse

message: Should this be merged with Star_Trek_Curse? Maguirer 04:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Back in high school calculus, I came up with a Theory of a Mathematical Equation for Movie Sequels. It stated that: "Every movie sequel is a derivative of the film that preceded it." Most derivatives eventually become a constant, which means the next try will be a total zero. That happens so often. Godzilla or James Bond films, on the other hand, being character based episodes, were explained by ex, whose derivative is also ex. Yes, technically, you're watching the same movie over again.
So I got to Star Trek and figured that the equation had to be some form of sin(x), because that starts at 0, the derivative is cos(x)=1, followed by -sin(x), and this would go a long way toward explaining the bad movie, good movie pattern of the series. 
Yeah, I know-- No Original Research. MMetro 20:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mathmatical Equation

message: Is the World Gross value corrected for inflation?  Should it be? --Mdwyer 21:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Gross Data 

message: This has got to be by far the most ridiculous Wikipedia article I've seen. It would be better to fuse this with a general page on the films or franchise (as a footnote). -TheHande (talk) 11:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It frankly doesn't matter.  There's a perception that this is true, and that's all that's important, repeated in several sources.  Now, the genuine problem this article has is the title - I've never heard it called a "curse" either, but that's where the article was, so whatever.  If somebody else has a better title for "even numbered films are good, odd bad," then go for it and move the page.  SnowFire (talk) 06:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. There's no Bigfoot, but there's an article about Bigfoot. Happywaffle (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, we've got cr*p item's galore, and the fact that we have them means we can have more! Olivertownshend (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bogus 

message: Good grief.  Someone wants to delete the article?  Okay, the article could be more informative.  So let's stub it.  The name is misleading?  So let's rename it.  The basic quantitative fFacts are pretty good.  We could merge it to another, larger, existing article, perhaps.  But deletion?  Deleting an article should be used to say "This knowledge is entirely bogus without redeeming value or truth."  The chart states clear information with precise data, and the text outlines the basic premise and foundation of the article.  It is plain to me this article is not without some level of value or truth.  It just happens to be a very small level of value or truth, at the moment.  So let's identify what needs to change fFor this to be a better article, or a better section of a different article.  I'll start:   Skotte (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *This "curse" is an original synthesis based on a selective interpretation of cited sources. Citations that don't support the conclusion are called outliers. The odd movie syndrome has been a well-known concept in Trek fandom since the 1990s, but that doesn't mean we can make a serious encyclopedic article about it. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

text: *With concerns above stated, if you think this article can be salvaged, then the Prod tag should come off and we can attempt a constructive solution, like a rewrite or a merge. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion?