lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Imzadi

message: Can anyone with way more wikiknowledge than me expand on this article? This was a great book and needs a legitimate entry including plot... Trcrev 18:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added a plot summary.  Just four years later! Mschlock (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Develop

message: I'm going to remove the statement "One reviewer described Imzadi in 2010 as his favorite Star Trek book of all time," because it would lead someone to believe the reviewer was reviewing Imzadi. They were not; it was just an off-hand comment in a review for a different book altogether -- not very "notable" for Wikipedia. -- Mecandes (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It was nevertheless a direct statement about the book Imzadi, and a striking affirmation of its value, in a sufficiently good source to be worth quoting. How about a statement that provides more context, e.g. "A TrekMovie.com reviewer writing in 2010 about Peter David's subsequent work mentioned that Imzadi remained his favorite Star Trek book of all time"? - Fayenatic (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Reviews

message: Why no mention of the use of the word ' Imzadi ' in Star Trek: Nemesis ? I would do it, but I'm not much of a trekkie so, perhaps a regular contributor to this article would care to address this?  - thewolfchild  04:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The word was first seen used within a telepathic violation in Violations (Star Trek: The Next Generation). However, I don't think it would be appropriate to mention either of those instances here, because this article is about the novel rather than the word. Memory Alpha is the place for that. I'll just add a link to that here. – Fayenatic London 21:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Nemesis
Talk:The Corbomite Maneuver

message: I would like to dispute the neutrality of this article. "Overdubbed"? Really? 98.221.86.124 (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, yes, really, "overdubbed." It is a technical term meaning that a sound (more often than not a voice, as in this case) is dubbed over the one that was recorded during filming. Child actor Clint Howard's voice was deemed inappropriate for his character, a mature specimen of his extra-terrestrial species, so Walker Edmiston was hired to provide an alternative. That's all it means. Don't know where you're coming from. --Tbrittreid (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality?

message: Upon meeting the sphere vessel, Kirk introduces the Enterprise as being a "United Earth ship" vessel. Later it is a "Federation" vessel. Either very rapid political change, or a blooper. Considering the crudity of the "rocking corridor" set (fire service fittings on the wall?), and the repetition of the "seek out" mantra to the senior officers, it really does look like a first episode.
Another script oddity :
* Spock : "it must be over a mile in diameter" ; Bailey : "it's over five thousand metres away"
AKarley (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect they didn't realize you were editing the Talk page rather than the article page proper, where this wouldn't belong without proper citations. Why not assume good faith? DonIago (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I don't need the hassle. It's easier to not edit Wikipedia errors than put up with that sort of bullshit. I remember when I was on the Nupedia mailing list and exactly this sort of thing was predicted concerning the then nascent Wikipedia project.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Karley (talk • contribs) 17:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bloopers 

message: On IMDB this is episode #11 (not 10), see https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060028/episodes?ref_=tt_ov_epl .
On Netflix this is also episode #11, see https://www.netflix.com/watch/70109445 .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gentleman wiki (talk • contribs) 23:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know how they are counting....production number? This is the order the episodes were aired. 1. Man Trap 2. Charlie X 3. WNMHGB 4. Naked Time 5. Enemy Within 6. Mudd's Women 7. WALGMO? 8. Miri 9. Dagger of the Mind 10. Corbomite Maneuver StarHOG (Talk) 23:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe they both list The Cage as episode 1 StarHOG (Talk) 23:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode number?
Talk:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-C)

message: Shouldn't this article be more about the ship and less about the episode it appeared in? ComputerSherpa 12:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article focus 

message: In the propulsion section it lists:
-Impulse drive
-Warp Drive
The exelsior class is equipped with Transwarp Drive, not Warp Drive.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.49.207 (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propulsion 

message: Appears in one of my favorite episodes, but nevertheless I don't see evidence of independent notability for this subject. The episode, certainly; a few books, possibly; the ship, though, in and of itself? No. I am redirecting to its entry in Starship Enterprise. --EEMIV (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect
Talk:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-B)

message: I've added the infobox for the Enterprise-B. Acalamari 20:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox added

message: A couple of times now a anonymous user has added Saavik and Matthew Stanley as future captains of the Enterprise-B.  I could find no source for either in my own books, or on the internet, and have removed them. —MJBurrage • TALK • 20:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other captains

message: I have uploaded a duplicate image with a new fair-use rationale to justify its appearance in this article, as per WP:NONFREE.--Just James T/C 13:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Enterprise-B image

message: Ok, here's the problem - & I'd Appreciate it if this wasn't deleted ok. 
I very good friend died back in December, and to honor him (since he was a ST fan) myself and a couple other people who were friends with him wanted to create a custom ship based on the Enterprise-B.
To make a long story short, 8 different people have been searching for 3 month, and we STILL  haven't been able to get one - mainly due to greed. 
We're looking for the Playmates toy of it. It can be all scratched up, stickers missing, etc, it's actually prefered (it's going to be heavily modified).
If you happen across one, PLEASE leave a message on my userpage. 
99.165.179.228 (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  PlayMates Enterprise-B 

message: I really like this ship and its hapless captain, but I'm going to take the plunge to redirect this the article to Spacecraft in Star Trek. The current treatment offers no real-world perspective. I did a bit of a search through Google Books and Google Scholar about this ship, and while there are a few hits, most of them either come from "references" that adopt an in-universe perspective (e.g. the Star Trek Chronology) or mention the Enterprise-B as a physical/timeframe setting before discussing characters and conflicts in depth. (For example, reviews of the Lost Era book mentions the ship as setting, but only to connect it back to Generations to give readers a more familiar anchoring point for the timeline/location.) Anyhow, a redirect seems most appropriate. I am, however, going to add to the redirect target a line about how several Star Trek novel lines have expanded to take place on different starships. --EEMIV (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect
Talk:Red Zone Cuba

message: I know NPOV and everything, but shouldn't something be mentioned about how, for instance, this movie has been in IMDb's Worst 10 listing forever, or is on many critics lists as worst movies ever?
:Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).-Rolypolyman (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  One of the worst movies of all time 

message: Has anyone actually seen the un MST3000 version? Somehow I doubt all the cuts (or even many) were done by them.-ChristopherM 16:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cuts 

message: I case anyone's interested in expanding this article, here are some sources and commentary that could be of use.--Lenin and McCarthy  |  (Complain here) 22:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources
Talk:USS Enterprise (XCV 330)

message: In that entry, the description of the show sounds a hell of a lot like "Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda." If "Starship" WAS in fact the basis for "Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda," should a mention of that be made in the article?? --Promus Kaa 22:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Starship" TV Series 

message: From the line "with a launch date of 2123 (which in that original timeline, places it prior to the founding of the Federation, and only 60 years before the launch of the Enterprise NCC-1701)" I removed the part that says "and only 60 years before the launch of the Enterprise NCC-1701." The 1701 was launched in 2245, not 2183. --NME 21:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Enterprise was launched in the 2180s according to the timeline that was official up until the release of Next Gen.  Early in the first season they started to give dates that did not fit the old timeline, and the current chronology is based on the newer interpretation. —MJBurrage • TALK • 00:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: So instead of deleting it, why not change it to 65 years or six decades as I just did.  The usage of 60 years for an 80's date compared to a 20's date is not that unusual. —MJBurrage • TALK • 13:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed a line

message: I redirected this page. It is a collection of plot summary focusing on a background illustration. --EEMIV (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the page and did a little cleanup.  None of the material is original to this article, it all comes from the cited TrekPlace article, books, and the film/episodes to have shown images of the ship. —MJBurrage(T•C) 18:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Trekplace is an unreliable fan site, and this article still fails to make an assertion of -- let alone a substantiation of -- notability. It is, after all, nothing more than a picture that has come up a couple of times for which a few obscure publications have created a backstory. Please show evidence the ship has been subject of significant coverage by multiple third-party sources, otherwise the redirect should be restored. --EEMIV (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect
Talk:First Flight (Star Trek: Enterprise)

message: I merged the trivia section into the article. Lots42 (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 
Talk:Twilight (Star Trek: Enterprise)

message: If anyone is interested in expanding the Reception section with some academic analysis, then you might take a look at the writings of David Greven (Professor of English at the University of South Carolina). He wrote a book called "Gender and Sexuality in Star Trek" and before that an essay titled "The twilight of identity"  which includes analysis of this episode. 
Based on what I can see from the preview at Google Books the essay appears to be the basis for chapter 6 of the book.
He writes "Twilight gives us apocalypse as the direct result of a woman in command" so in case you hadn't already guessed he is highly critical of the episode. (I am unlikely to revisit this article and do it myself as this is already rated as a "Good Article" and I am trying to improve the quality of the other articles in the series that are more badly in need of work, and I found this while looking for other sources.) -- 109.76.201.161 (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception
Talk:Typhlonarke

message: hi
I know it's kind of a weird request, but could this article be called Blind Electric Ray, not Blind legged torpedo,and with the redirect going the other way? They're both legitimate names for the fish, as far as I can see, but I think Blind Electric Ray is the better name (more common in NZ where I come from) - indeed, I've even named my Wiki-self after it. I don't know anyone else in the world who's especially interested in blind electric rays (or ~ legged torpedoes), so I can't see it'd do any harm could it? ElectricRay 22:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Goodwill Games

message: This article is missing a crucial piece of information -- why were the games cancelled after 2001? 68.146.81.123 (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Information missing

message: Or were you able to get any of that on tape?
--Mark Knopfler  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4898:80E8:ED31:0:0:0:3 (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Were you watching the Goodwill Games?
Talk:Nick Bateman (television personality)

message: :::The editor "Dogtanyan" IS Nick Bateman.  There is no way he should be editing his own page.  COYW (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Its debatable, but most reality TV "stars" have articles. Infact, of all of them it could be argued Bateman is the most notable. His nasty behaviour followed by his breakdown and plea for forgiveness was a real landmark in the culture of reality tv 'drama' (in the UK, at least). It was frontpage news and really resonated with the public. That, i suppose, makes him notable enough. Rockpocket 02:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: "Notability on Wikipedia for people is based on the following criterion: The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries" from WP:BIO. Making the front page of several national newspapers in the UK therefore means he meets the notability criteria. Alexj2002 00:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: , you wiped this article making it a redirect with edit summary 'nn'. Bateman has been in 3 notable TV shows (Big Brother, Back to Reality and Ultimate Big Brother), so meets WP:ENT #1. He has also received extensive coverage, I could find recent articles about his time in Big Brother series 1, so it is being written about in national publications two decades later, and that's not just tabloids; he meets WP:GNG by a mile. This just needed scaling back (read as if written by someone who worked for his PR in parts) and a bit of work. Boleyn (talk) 09:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability
Talk:Detained (Star Trek: Enterprise)

message: I think the image :File:Dean Stockwell 08 (6940353324).jpg could be a good addition to this page if cropped to make a portrait image. -- 109.76.142.197 (talk) 04:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and used :File:Dean_Stockwell_01_(6940352648).jpg instead for now. -- 109.78.203.76 (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Desert Crossing

message: I looked to try and find some more information to give context to the ratings but I had already covered the most significant point, that this aired as a double bill. That meant the episode aired at 9pm rather than the usual 8pm and The West Wing was the dominant show in that time slot but still the episode got about the same ratings as usual and came fourth in the ratings for the hour. About the same does not seem interesting or notable, and there doesn't seem to anything in particular worth mentioning, but I mention it here just in case someone else has a better idea or maybe I come back around and take another look at it again later. 
The relevant article from Zap2it for that day does not seem to have been saved by the Wayback Machine: "NBC Wins Wednesday; '20/20' Helps ABC to Second" (Thu, May 9, 2002) http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://tv.zap2it.com/news/dailynielsenrankings.html?25794  and Variety noted that Fallen Hero got high ratings but didn't comment on this episode. -- 109.77.200.34 (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratings 

message: IMDB erroneously claims this episode was filmed in Arizona. Please note that WP:IMDB is not a reliable source. Scott Bakula said this episode was filmed in Southern California . Memory Alpha quotes the call sheet "filmed their scenes on Tuesday 12 March 2002 on location at the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area and on Thursday 14 March 2002 at Paramount Stage 8." We cannot use another wiki as a source but there is no reason to believe that Memory Alpha is incorrect. The Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area or Algodones Dunes are in Southern California. Knowing the name of the location I tried to find another source besides Memory Alpha saying the episode was film there but didn't have any luck. Maybe someone can find a better reference eventually and add it to the article. -- 109.79.64.54 (talk) 01:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location
Talk:The Star Trek Encyclopedia

message: I don't understand the contrast here.  the Encyclopedia contains plenty of speculation itself, sometimes noted and sometimes not, and is not an independent work based solely on canon.  the same is true of the Chronology.   The Technical Manual is on the other largely made up.  Morwen - Talk 14:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nerds. The worst kind of nerds. That's the only people this canonicity argument matters to. The article Star Trek canon already makes that abundantly clear. For the purposes of a Wikipedia encyclopedia article about the book "The Star Trek Encyclopedia" none of this matters. Only a tiny fraction of an enormous reference book, of an official publication, put together by the actual production staff, is ever going to be disputed and even then by only the worst kind of pedants. It is 2021 and the text still included tags arguing this mess. I've rephrased and reordered it a little, I've copied a StarTrek.com reference already used in Star Trek canon, and put it back on Roddenberry, for what little relevance it actually has to this article. Readers can consider themselves obliquely warned that the Star Trek Encyclopedia/Omnipedia is an excellent reference but still not the final word, and to the refer back to the shows themselves. -- 109.77.207.230 (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Canon vs semi-canon
Talk:The Expanse (Star Trek: Enterprise episode)

message: According to the article, "This the first episode in the Star Trek universe that shows an 9/11 style attack on Earth."
Last time I checked, the attacks on the 11th of september were three airplanes that crashed into buildings, rather than a huge probe in space using a massive destruct-o-beam to cut a trail of death and destruction along the american continents.
What gives? Driam 08:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There were no objections, so I edited the page. Driam 18:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Driam. That was silly. DavidPesta (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:David Tibet

message: I have initiated discussion on copyright concerns for the image at . Cnwb 22:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright concerns

message: It seems to me that the article as it stands at this point focuses too much on Tibet's interest in Crowley. I think, given his artistic output and interviews, that this article should be far more reflective of his Christian viewpoint than his Thelemic connections. Could someone with a deeper knowledge of Tibet maybe clear this up a bit? -Prenna 13:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite/Clearup needed?

message: I'm removing most of the external links per WP:EXT; they are here for reference and should be weaved into the article as/if appropriate.
*
*Jnana Records
*Photo and list of "Involvements"
*Recordings
*Interview with FluxEuropa, April, 1997 (note: already linked as a reference)
*1997 Interview with 'The Wire' magazine
*Isis Gallery Presents David Tibet (note: deadlink)
-- t_kiehne (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links
Talk:Two Days and Two Nights

message: Production background etc. Dey Young discussed the episode as part of the Trek Untold podcast, available from wherever you get podcasts, but also on Youtube: Dey Young, Actress from Star Trek TNG, DS9 & Enterprise - Trek Untold #44 which thankfully includes a transcript, so it is so much easier to find the bit relevant to this episode which begins at 52 minutes. She particularly remembers the elaborate makeup and tatoos painted on her body, but thought the character was a bit less developed than her previous roles and didn't have a character arc. -- 109.78.202.191 (talk) 03:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources
Talk:SSL (company)

message: Three-axis spin stabilized satellite is an oxymoron. A satellite is either 3-axis stabilized, or Spin-stabilized, but not both.
Also, the first 3-axis stabilized communication satellite was built by Fairchild, under contract from NASA: ATS6, and the second and third were the franco-german built Symphonies.Smteacsm1 (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  3-Axis spin stabilized satellite ??? 

message: SS/L was just awarded a phase 2 contract by DARPA for the Phoenix project:  SS/L Awarded Phoenix Phase II Contract From DARPA, Parabolic Arc, 7 Nov 2013.  N2e (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[DARPA Phoenix]] Phase 2 contract award 

message: At February 20, 2018 21:38, User:Hebrewulf added a supposed reference for JSC Information Satellite Systems being a competitor of SSL. The text at that reference is:
:SSL’s competitors were Boeing Satellite Systems, Lockheed Martin, Thales Alenia Space (French), Airbus Defense and Space (French) and JSC Information Satellite Systems (i.e.NPO PM-Russian)
The text in this wiki article is:
:SSL’s major competitors are Boeing Satellite Systems, Lockheed Martin, Thales Alenia Space, Airbus Defence and Space and JSC Information Satellite Systems.
These sentences are so similar that one might guess that the latter was just copied from the former. Is gmcstream.com a credible source?
52.119.126.205 (talk) 06:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  JSC Information Satellite Systems as a competitor?
Talk:Shockwave (Star Trek: Enterprise)

message: I was trying to find a bit more context for the ratings of this episode. I found it interesting that a rerun of Shockwave part 2 (USA Today via TrekWeb) only a few weeks later during the World Series still managed 4.2 million viewers, not a huge drop from the 4.9 million it got first time round, unusual compared to the ratings dropoff more like 50% I've seen for other reruns. (I wonder how many viewers were like me and knew Star Trek would be rerun endlessly and were in no hurry to watch it on first broadcast, versus how many people were dedicated fans willing to watch the same episode again and again?) 
The ratings for other science fiction or fantasy genre shows that week is somewhat interesting, with various new shows getting strong ratings and Charmed beating Enterprise. Of particular interest to sci-fi fans though is Firefly (TV Series). I am fairly sure this was the same week that the Firefly debuted (Enterprise on Wednesday and Firefly on Friday) and the first episode actually broadcast was The Train Job. 
It took long enough to write even this little note, and it will take even longer to double check everything (maybe dig out a direct reference to USA Today, instead of an indirect one), and rephrase it into suitable text for an encyclopedia article. That is something I might come back around and do myself eventually but if anyone else is interested please do feel free to go ahead and expand the article. -- 109.79.178.107 (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratings