Talk:The 37's

message: This episode is described as featuring "the first time a Federation starship is shown landing on a planet's surface." But the air date of the episode is 1995, while Star Trek: Generations dates from 1994. Generations features the landing of the Enterprise's saucer section. This is arguably the first time we see a complete starship land, but not the first time we see a landing at all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.175.179.131 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 15 August 2009
:You can't call it a landing. The saucer section of the enterprised crashed on the planet due to the shockwave coming from the exploding drive section. The saucer was never designed to land. 62.235.184.126 (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Landing

message: As I see it, I think this article is about 90% ready for a good article nomination. Off the top of my head, here are what I think needs to be done before it should be nominated:
*Lead: The Star Trek episode leads have become pretty standardised and this article will be compared to those. So it just needs to be brought out in the same way. The only episode of Voyager I've worked up is "Tsunkatse" so you might want to take a look there.
*It might simply be worth including in a "see also" section, but "North Star" in ENT has a similar plot.
*We have a source for ratings, although it's in archive.org. See the reception section in "Tsunkatse" for the link, although you'll have to click through to season two of Voyager once in the site.
*The home media information should be interesting as it might be a good place to deal with the status of this episode. As a Brit, I think of it as the last episode of season one, but in the US it's the first episode of season two. 
*The only nit picky thing - there's two different date formats in the citations.
Those are the only things that jump out at me. Miyagawa (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the ratings now - and I've got a copy of Visions of the Future, so at some point I'll check the references for those and see if I can make the page mentions a little more precise (and see if there is anything else relevant that could be added). Miyagawa (talk) 09:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've expanded the lead. Miyagawa (talk) 13:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the dates match - I was intending to keep to the original format by some of the books and magazines only had months and years so it proved difficult. Instead I went for full month then date, then year. Rather than YYYY-MM-DD as intended. Miyagawa (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

text: I mentioned this in the Star Trek Wiki Project talk page, but why would the words "human" and "humans" be capitalized throughout the plot description? -P shadoh (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  For consistency since we capitalize "Cardassian" or "Romulan". I think it would look strange for a sentence to be "The Cardassians, humans, and Romulans all shook hands," so I capitalize "Human(s)".  —  fourthords | =Λ= | 01:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense, thanks! -P shadoh (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preparation for Good Article Nomination 

message: Why is the title incorrect? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: How so?  —  fourthords | =Λ= | 01:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Address your grammar complaints to Paramount -- Apostrophe -- if that's what the complaint was supposed to be. -- 109.77.207.146 (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 37's what? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion