Talk:The City on the Edge of Forever

message: It makes a prominent appearance in the fan-film along with the Planet Killer. It should be mentioned.DrWho42 05:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guardian of Forever in ''Star Trek: New Voyages'' 

message: This episode is notable in that it doesn't have a humorous ending, like most others.
If I recall correctly. (That's a big if, by the way.)
As I remember it, Kirk says, "Let's get the Hell out of here."
That's the last line.
Seems like this should be included in the article.
: Well, if you read the page you'd see at the bottom that very line is quoted. Cyberia23 21:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Along with not signing your posts.  Odd, I didn't think that making assumptions about material before reading it was particularly a "newbie-style mistake". ;)  Actually, most of the first and second season episodes had fairly serious endings.  The campy humor wrapups were a plague of the Fred Freiberger-produced third season. Canonblack 23:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jumping to conclusions 

message: In the article, it states somthing like McCoy was disarmed so he didn't have a phaser.  But I remember that when he jumped the redshirts on the planet, he grabbed a phaser from one of them.  Would someone who has the episode go and check to see which way it is. Val42 04:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: McCoy's phaser

message: There are many logical errors and inconsistencies in the televised version. For one thing, the crew remains on the Guardian's planet when the Enterprise disappears.
I've completely rewritten the script from scratch to remove these problems, and correct most of the story's dramatic problems (such as how Edith is able to prevent the US from entering the war after Pearl Harbor). Those desiring a copy may contact me.
WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The Crew Abides

message: Ok.  I turned this into a prose section.  It says things about the dispute which are uncontroversial, it doesn't go deep into the Harlan-said, Gene-said stuff as I think it would be very easy to make a very badly written section about this.  Morwen - Talk 20:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: so, was this removed from all versions of the remastered version, or just the short version of the remastered version?  the way the article has it now it has it removed from all versions, which would be remarkable as i wasn't aware they were making any edits for the long version (which, to be fair, stations aren't airing much) which will end up on DVDs.  Morwen - Talk 23:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  scene with bum dying cut everywhere? 

message: Very emotional line, Let's get the hell out of here by Kirk (when about to beam back up to the Enterprise). This parting line, should be added to the episode. GoodDay 00:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have read the whole article, that 'line' is there. GoodDay 00:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kirk's final words 

message: Now Ellison is suing Paramount over this episode:  64.41.23.130 (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm surprised he's not suing Wikipedia over this entry.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.233.248 (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawsuit 

message: Whatever arguments there are about who wrote this and who didn't include that and one side or the other, the credit accepted by the WGA as writer of the episode is Harlan Ellison.  The WGA credit should be the only credit that matters. JoeD80 (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credited Writer 

message: I believe "bum" to be pejorative [] [] and therefore changed it to the more neutral "homeless man". If somebody has evidence that bum is not pejorative and cannot be seen as such please free to change it again. 
BTW, has anybody checked the link to John Harmon? It doesn't seem likely that he is the same as the football coach. --Robinandroid (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  bum vs. homeless man 

message: Has anyone asked or discovered WHY the 'bum' death was subsequently edited out? I strongly posit it was due to to the bane of political correctness. (See preceding entry) How dare the homeless be thought of as 'worthless' or not 'mattering'! (Though maybe the intention all along, to point out the 'cruelty'?) There are probably other reasons the scene was put in (think of plot context), but the later overriding 'unfairness' of killing a bum is unconscionable for today's crowd. Would anyone like to posit the scene was 'filler' to make the episode the proper length? Hell, the scene has even been left out of the plot for this entry!
I think the only reason this show has not been heavily 're-edited' for many, now unpopular, portrayals is that there are too many fans that would cause a 'stink'! Give it another generation, and the show will go the way of Amos 'n' Andy as being racist, 'homophobic', misogynistic, etc.
Heaven forbid anyone be offended for anything, the new unalienable P.C. Human Right!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.245.71 (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The phaser was definitely set to overload, as it makes the same noise that increases in pitch until it explodes, that was shown in other episodes. Besides your concerns, which are reasonable assumptions, it would not be an assumption to point out that every other time a phaser is set to overload, it caused a violent explosion when it reached a critical threshold, but in this episode it just causes a flash of light and the vaporization of the person holding it. If it had been consistent with previous episodes, it should have created a crater in the ground where the character who was holding it was standing, and he should have been blown to bits, not vaporized. 108.180.92.37 (talk) 05:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Correctness 

message: There are many red links in the article, I've never seen so many on the eve of a GA nomination.  Mlpearc (open channel) 15:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be addressing those before nomination. At least a handful (Don Ingalls, Lincoln Enterprises) among them, I have the sources to create new articles for. The others I'll review and at least see if I can get some stubs out of them, or else I'll remove the links. Miyagawa (talk) 10:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That's Don Ingalls created. Miyagawa (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Lincoln Enterprises now created as well. Miyagawa (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: All fixed - Steven W. Carabatsos created, and the remainder have been removed. Arne Starr might qualify for an article in the future, but I can only find one proper source to use, so I didn't create that at the moment. Miyagawa (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red links 

message: If anyone has access to a copy of The Music of Star Trek by Jeff Bond, please get in touch - it's needed for the music portion of this article. By all accounts, it'll cite the currently uncited information and probably expand on it. Miyagawa (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone came through on the resource exchange. Now added to the article. Miyagawa (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''The Music of Star Trek'' 

message: The NFC rationale for the screenshot in the infobox is that it "help[s] identify the episode", "characterize[s] the episode", and "illustrates the nature of the Guardian of Forever".  There is marginal critical commentary (WP:NFCI) on the appearance of the GOF in the section "Guardian of Forever", but it's already illustrated by libre-licensed imagery.  Furthermore, the image in the infobox doesn't "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic" (WP:NFCC#8); there's nothing in the article that cannot be understood without the inclusion of the screenshot.  —  fourthords | =Λ= |  16:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur - I had hoped something would come related to the construction of the Guardian in the various sources which would warrant it, but it simply doesn't. While the "broken columns" bit describes some scenery work, I don't think an image is required for that purpose, and even so, it wouldn't be this particular image. I'm going to remove the image now. Miyagawa (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  screenshot 

message: Moving the discussion here from my talk page (User talk:Miyagawa#Hey Miyagawa) so that it can be more open and allow other editors to interject if they have thoughts or ideas. I've just made a further edit to the Music section, despite your threat of abitration. I also dislike that you presumed I'd be a complete dick about it and just hit the big shiny revert button.
Instead, I've brought back the cited material you previously removed, as I figured you only meant to remove the final sentence as you discussed in the previous message on my talk page and not the entire paragraph. The sentence in question is on the article, but as hidden text for the moment while I double check the source, and if it comes to it, re-watch the episode to see if the source itself got it correct. 
However, some problems remain - two of the points you made are uncited currently, and I've been unable to find reliable citations for them. A third point is cited to a forum, which is an unreliable source - however to be fair, if it wasn't for that forum then I would never have known to look up information on the episode in The Music of Star Trek as they mentioned the book in the discussion. 
So, can you identify better sourcing for those statements so that they can be left in (as that'd be the ideal solution)? The only reason why they were previously removed was because they were uncited or unreliably cited material. Miyagawa (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, made some progress. Using Archive.org's wayback machine, I've tracked down an article on the official Star Trek website which specifically states that the song was by an "unknown studio vocalist". I've removed the cite needed tag for Ray Noble, as it actually was cited elsewhere in the text I added back. Miyagawa (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've just reverted your edits today. You removed a fully cited paragraph and replaced with a paragraph which was partly uncited, partly cited to an incorrect source and partly cited to an unreliable source (a forum). Miyagawa (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not an expert, you made bundles of mistakes in your original edits to the music that could only have been made by not watching this episode in the first place. Dickie birdie (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You've managed to bring in an incorrect statement into the argument. All versions of this song "Goodnight Sweetheart" were composed by Ray Noble, and to lyrics written by Jimmy Campbell and Reg Connelly. If it wasn't composed by Ray Noble and with lyrics by Jimmy Campbell and Reg Connelly then it's simply a different song entitled "Goodnight Sweetheart". The fact that it may have been recorded by several artists, does not change the fact that it was composed by Ray Noble with lyrics by Jimmy Campbell and Reg Connelly. There are no other versions. Because then it would be a different song. I'm not entirely sure how to make this concept easier to understand for you, as it's a very basic concept. Now, according to the official Star Trek website, it was recorded for the episode by a unknown studio singer. This again, does not change the "version" of the song. The song remains composed by Ray Noble with lyrics by Jimmy Campbell and Reg Connelly. If anything, the "version" used is the one recorded by the studio singer, not the "version" composed by Noble etc, etc. Miyagawa (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what. You keep referring to the addition of the edit I made that said that the music appeared in the episode multiple times. Yet you just went and added a citation that agrees with me! Did you even read the page of the Star Trek FAQ? I quote the page "is first heard playing on a radio and later reappears as a love theme during all of Shatner's subsequent scenes with Collins." So will you accept the statement in the source you added, or are we going to have to take this to arbitration as you threatened previously? Miyagawa (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: For anyone else reading this, the page is available to read here. Miyagawa (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

text: There were different versions of the song "Goodnight Sweetheart" released in 1931 and that can be demonstrated by YouTube. When Miyagawa began editing this page he hadn't even watched the episode in question and based all his edits from what he read in books. Absolutely silly. And this person wants to correct other editors, Dickie birdie (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There are different recordings of "Goodnight Sweetheart". That is correct, and there can be no argument to that. The original composer or the writers which remain the same in all versions. A recording by a different recording artist simply changes the recording artist. I'm tired of arguing over whether a song appeared in a television episode once, twice, three, twenty or fifty times. It's not worth the argument, would probably just be considered needless trivia anyway. If you know of better sourcing for the Robinson citation, then that'd be great. I have no doubt that it is correct, but a forum is an unreliable source. I've also seen a mention of it at StarTrekHistory.com but that would be considered to be an unreliable fan site as well. Plus anything related to the erroneous inclusion of the song in the DVD would be better than the complete lack of source we have at the moment. Miyagawa (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music Section 

message: There was an overhaul request at Wikipedia Project: Star Trek and I have attempted that overhaul. This article contains a vast amount of information compared to other episode articles, however, because of its critical acclaim, there has been a lot written about the episode, including the antics of Harlan Ellison. Yes, I think the article is still long, but I couldn't bring myself to cut anymore because I enjoyed reading all this information. I learned a lot about this episode I didn't know (and I know a lot about Star Trek). I do think I successfully trimmed a great deal, improved links, got rid of redundancies, etc.; it may need more from others, but I'm done. StarHOG (Talk) 21:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul 

message: Posted a link to a November 25, 1960 episode of ROUTE 66, entitled "Legacy For Lucia."  Around the 39-40 minute mark, actor Jay C. Flippen says, "Get her the hell out of my life."  Hopefully this puts to bed the story that STAR TREK was the first to use "hell" as profanity on American television.  Here is the link:  http://www.shoutfactorytv.com/route-66/legacy-for-lucia/53cd481869702d27d3651d00  Sir Rhosis (talk) 00:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for finding this and posting. I kept seeing references to "one of the first instances" or that it was the first instance, without any sourcing, and did a little digging and found that article that said it was the first, so I made the change since it was the only source I had. But there was a little red alert going off in my head telling me this may not be the end-all-be-all. I'm glad you posted this link and made those changes. StarHOG (Talk) 13:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of "Hell" as a Profanity on American Television

message: On July 31, 2013, @Koavf removed the section on "40th Anniversary Remastering" in this article and many others related to Star Trek episodes. Why did this happen and why wasn't these sections added back?  The episode "The City on the Edge of Forever" is my favorite Star Trek episode, and it was nice to see the changes that were made to the most recent version. Otherwise, I have to watch YouTube "Star Trek - The City on the Edge of Forever - special effects comparison".  Dkf12 (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you really questioning an edit from 7 years ago? That material, number one, was completely unsourced, so there's no issues there with it being reverted. Number two, it was regarded as trivial. SolarFlashDiscussion 18:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand Wikipedia needs sourced material; however, the points in the section of this article and other Star Trek articles seemed valid.  Regarding the Trivia, it does seem relevant to discuss how the episodes have been updated in remastering.Dkf12 (talk) 03:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  40th Anniversary Remastering removed 

message: The title sounds great but doesn't make any sense with respect to the plot. 2003:CE:BF1C:F968:93E:6019:FDA4:D382 (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does the title mean?