Removed Edit

Removed "In 2373, Worf claimed there was a Klingon proverb that stated "You cannot loosen a man's tongue with root beer." (DS9: "Rapture")". I placed the quoting in its rightful place of the Klingon proverbs. Because Worf stated it in (DS9: "Rapture"), it is canon. --LtCmdr-Vulcan 08:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Stone knives and bearskins Edit

I removed the following text:

Some fans use this term to refer to situations in which much is expected from little.

Ummm... do we really care what some fans do? -- Renegade54 17:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Revenge is a dish best served cold Edit

Merge Edit

Alrighty, where shall we merge this to? --From Andoria with Love 19:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

How 'bout one of the sections where it's mentioned on the Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan page, i.e. "Notes"? - Bridge 19:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
A literature page about proverb/proverbs, as I'm sure there are others, like "Never turn your back on a Breen". --Alan 19:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Guess we already had it in such a place. --Alan 19:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah-ha, then I suppose we should merge it to the proverbs page? Yes, that sounds like a good plan to me. I'll add the merge template to the page and we can see if anyone disagrees with it within the next few days. If not, we can merge. Otherwise, probably just delete it. --From Andoria with Love 21:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge. Some of this info would be useful for background on that easily overlooked page.– Cleanse 00:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This could potentially be salvaged into its own article if the phrase has some sort of significance in the Trek universe, or outside it, beyond a proverb and catch phrase. As it stands, however, it leaves me saying "so what?" insofar as there's simply not enough substance to justify a separate article. Relegate it to background information and elsewhere as mentioned above. Scholasticitous 13:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty, it's been merged. The article's contents can now be found within Proverb's history, should we decided to start adding background notes on each phrase. --From Andoria with Love 08:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved from pages for deletion Edit

This article seems to be just an analysis of the phrase, and isn't even in the Star Trek POV. Even if it was in the POV, it only serves to define the phrase. As other similar articles have been removed or altered (the recent Communism article, the Shakespeare and Star Trek article, this one should be removed as well.--31dot 21:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems like we already had a discussion going here discussing what to do with it, why start a second? -Alan 21:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I did overlook that discussion(and I apologize) but I am not entirely certain any mention of this phrase is warranted.--31dot 21:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Since there was already a discussion underway on the article's talk page, may I suggest merging/moving this discussion there? --From Andoria with Love 21:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
That's fine with me.(Sorry it took so long to get back to you.)--31dot 23:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Alrighty then, merged. Everyone, please continue this discussion in the "Merge" section above. --From Andoria with Love 02:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Burning the midnight oil Edit

This seems to just be a dictionary definition, defining it and noting two instances where the phrase was used. We have also deleted at least one article on a phrase before, "To hell with it" --31dot 03:19, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

Mentions of oil should be at its article or Petroleum, and the All Good Things reference is there already.--31dot 03:28, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

But it is not oil, it is an idiom!! It was also used in "First Flight". Anyway, regardless, how can you say we are striving to be as comprehensive of a reference as possible and then suggest we dont catalog something because it was only mentioned in two instances. So what? We have hundreds of pages here referencing something that was only used or shown or mentioned once and there is always overlap. Maybe someone will actually want to do a search on the expression to find out in what episode Data said it, cause they considered it funny etc. Fact is, it is an expression used in canon with sufficient context to warrant an entry. The fact that something was mentioned in the episode doesnt mean we cant have separate entries for it. – Distantlycharmed 03:40, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we are here to list instances of phrases. As said on the "To hell with it" deletion page, we are not a book of phrases. Do you really think we need an article on every phrase? And if so, how can we then continue to say we are not a dictionary?--31dot 03:52, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

It is an idiom, not a random phrase. "To hell with it" is a random phrase. Anyway, to hell with it...– Distantlycharmed 04:01, November 23, 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, this one I'm going to go with saying we don't need to keep, because its use as an idiom in Star Trek is not somehow unique. That's not to say that idioms don't belong, per say, especially if the idiom is unique to Trek or its specific use is unique. Yes, this is somewhat of a subjective judgment call, and in this case I'm saying this one isn't unique enough. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:33, November 23, 2010 (UTC)
At the very least, perhaps it should be moved to some sort of larger pages that discusses idiom (I think there's something like that for insults or whatever), instead of having individual pages. I guess though, either or option doesn't really matter to me (as I kind of agree with what's being said on not needing it). On a more personal note (and somewhat off topic), I had to switch to Monobook just to figure out on how to add to this frickin' discussion. --Terran Officer 05:46, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Edit

Per the talk page, we are not about documenting the use of idioms, unless they are specific to Star Trek. The references on the page could be placed at Oil or Petroleum, and one reference is there already.--31dot 11:14, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

  • Placement on petroleum would be debatable exactly because it is an idiomatic expression, one where the meaning of the phrase is not made up from the individual meanings of its constituents. The meaning of the phrase is detached from what exactly "oil" means. In any case, though, idioms are part of a language just as much as any other "random phrase" (as it has been put on the talk page) which might need to be explained to an uninformed listener to that language. Explaining idioms that are part of nowadays english language is outside of the scope of this wiki. Delete. -- Cid Highwind 13:51, November 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • What Cid said. Delete. -- Renegade54 15:50, November 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • Placement to petroleum or oil would not just be debatable but flat out wrong. Burning the midnight oil has nothing to do, as Cid pointed out, with petroleum products and it is not its defining feature. The episodes where this appears all have the "burning the midnight oil" part red-linked by the way. If we dont want idioms referenced then why have them red-linked as if these were needed articles? – Distantlycharmed 18:44, November 23, 2010 (UTC)
I could red link "two plus two equals four" but that in and of itself does not mean it needs an article.--31dot 02:26, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
If I make a red-link for it, can we bring back the redirect for Worf, son of Mogh, of the Klingon House of Martok, of the Human family Rozhenko, mate to K'Ehleyr, father to Alexander Rozhenko, and husband to Jadzia Dax, Starfleet officer and soldier of the Empire, bane of the House of Duras and slayer of Gowron? Pretty please? I'll give you all chocolates... --OuroborosCobra talk 02:45, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
Well my bad. I thought the whole point of red-linking was to indicate that an article is needed - not taking into account vandalism or obvious nonsensical stuff. With regards to this particular expression: I saw the "red-link" in at least two of the articles it is referencing so I didn't think it was an accident. – Distantlycharmed 02:56, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
You aren't wrong to think that, not wrong at all. In general a red-link does mean just that. Normally a red-link is something we want to make into an article. One thing to keep in mind is that, as with everything on this site, anyone can create a red-link. That means that even if normally they mean "we want something here," sometimes they just mean "some anon added this without thinking." No harm done, DC. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:00, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
I'd recommend the possibility of rolling things like this into a bigger topic like idiom or idiom as a subset of language -- certainly it'd be interesting to see a compendium of idioms as addressed in Star Trek, and an opportunity to examine alien idiom and language that was devised solely for the canon of the series. This article does not stand alone as deserving to be a separate article, but the source could be listed there. Rename, broaden topic and expand. -- Captain MKB 03:12, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
I'd go for Captainmike's suggestion, I seem to recall similar pages being for insults or something along that line (it escapes me at the moment, though). --Terran Officer 03:26, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
While we should have a page about Star Trek-specific idioms(if they aren't discussed already) I'm not keen on a general idiom page as it would do nothing except define them- and we are not a dictionary. It might be fine if limited to those phrases specifically called idioms in canon, though I think this "midnight oil" reference is the only example of that. In general, however, it is not our job to point out specific ways the English language was used, as Cid said.--31dot 11:39, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
My vote is for move it into Idiom - given that idiom is a canon concept it deserves a page anyhow, and not only would mentioning "burning the midnight oil" as an example on that page be very natural, it would also make that page feel like the description of a concept rather then the definition of a word. As for the question if other idioms, not specificaly refered to as such, belong on that page, that's a different discussion, and one that should not cloud this page. But for the record, there's a very similar page, Proverb, which includes proverbs that aren't refered to as such, and doesn't seem to suffer from it. Lastly, I think the page with insults people seem to remember is either slang or Category:Slang. Note that some slang terms are just listed on the slang page, while others get their own articles. Not much consistency there... And many pages in the slang category pretty much already are dictionary definitions. (BYOB, Earther). Also I don't think Burning the midnight oil is particulary worse then Stone knives and bearskins or Needle in a haystack. -- Capricorn 06:49, November 27, 2010 (UTC)
  • The whole idiom page thing sounds like a better idea than just deleting this, for all the reasons directly above. - Archduk3 20:06, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

Chicken and the egg Edit

Quoting from the episode itself, using online transcript:

PICARD: Will you leave me alone? Damn it, I'm not stupid. Will, the tachyon pulses, they were used in the same spot in three different time periods. Don't you see? When the tachyon pulse used. I mean, I mean when the Pasteur used the tachyon pulse, then, then, we I mean everything started, Will. We set everything in motion. It's like the chicken and the egg, Will, the chicken and the egg! We think it started in the past but it didn't. It started right here, in the future. That's why it's getting larger in the past.
DATA: I think I know what the Captain's talking about. If I'm not mistaken, he's describing a paradox.

Picard is not describing some specific, well-known paradox with the official title "Chicken and the Egg" - he is just describing a generally paradoxical situation and uses the idiom "chicken/egg" to describe it. As such, this article should be merged with Idiom and does not need to exist separately. That would also solve the discrepancy between this title and the one on Wikipedia ("and" vs. "or"), and remove the categorization as some official paradox (which it isn't). -- Cid Highwind 16:21, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

Support.--31dot 16:23, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
Support, though there should still be some sort of link to this information from paradox. - Archduk3 19:19, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
Support: Even though I created this article, I was unaware of the Idiom page at the time, and I heard Picard mention this when I watched "All Good Things..." recently so I created it. But I agree, it would be better suited on that page with a redirect. -- TrekFan Open a channel 06:32, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
Support. If we gave a page to every common Human expression used in Star Trek, we would have no time left to fight about the dictates of Vulcan poetics. -Angry Future Romulan

Broaden topic to "metaphor" Edit

Earlier today, I suggested to merge the new article Chicken and the egg with this page. However, thinking about it further, that doesn't seem to be an idiom but a simple metaphor. Similarly, I'm not sure if "Needle in a haystack" really is an idiom.

Now, idioms are just a special case of metaphors - one where the act of "comparing" situations isn't that prominent anymore. So, to avoid having two articles about very similar topics, I suggest to rename this one to Metaphor and continue to use it for both metaphors and idioms. -- Cid Highwind 23:06, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

It might be worth keeping in mind that there's also a page called Proverb, which uses a very liberal interpretation of the concept for it's examples, and that there's a whole lot of canon sayings and expressions, which are currently either not documented, or in Proverb. This might be the time to start thinking about a more integrated solution. -- Capricorn 16:10, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
Not a bad idea. A metaphor page could also have a little blurb about the Tamarian language, since Picard mentioned that it uses metaphors.--31dot 21:13, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
Do we have a term that would cover a combination of Idiom and Proverb? We already have the same saying on both pages in "needle in the haystack", so a combined page seems like a good idea. - Archduk3 00:17, June 11, 2011 (UTC)

Redux Edit

This seemed to run out of steam last time, in that nothing was done, so I'm reopening the discussion with notices, so this will at least be listed somewhere. Metaphor seem fine enough for both idioms and proverbs, since there is overlap between the two, based on Google results when searching for both words. - Archduk3 21:41, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

Similes Edit

It looks like similes also ended up in this section. I vote for a different title for the page, only because the word "metaphor" can cause issues when taken literally; the "Comparisons" section is full of similes, under the general heading of metaphor. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Poetic justice Edit

Should this be merged into metaphors? -- Capricorn (talk) 16:17, June 19, 2015 (UTC)

I support a merge. Tom (talk) 03:32, June 20, 2015 (UTC)
Merge --| TrekFan Open a channel 22:03, June 20, 2015 (UTC)
Merged. Tom (talk) 19:45, July 26, 2015 (UTC)

Cat-and-mouse game Edit

This isn't so much a specific type of game or operation, it is a figure of speech to describe any kind of situation which has certain characteristics. It's a textbook example of the kind of stuff belonging at metaphor. -- Capricorn (talk) 08:16, August 1, 2015 (UTC)

I support this. Tom (talk) 09:25, August 1, 2015 (UTC)
Support --| TrekFan Open a channel 13:49, August 1, 2015 (UTC)
By all means. --LauraCC (talk) 15:33, August 22, 2015 (UTC)'
Merged. Tom (talk) 10:18, August 24, 2015 (UTC)

Good Samaritan Edit

I know that yes, this was my page creation, but I think considering other pages that have been moved there, maybe this should qualify. --LauraCC (talk) 17:08, September 13, 2015 (UTC)

Merged. Tom (talk) 17:15, September 20, 2015 (UTC)

Judas goat Edit

Category Edit

Would this be better categorized in the Slang category? It seems to be a term applied to an animal and not an animal species itself. -- 31dot 12:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it might belong in metaphor. -- LauraCC (talk) 21:16, August 19, 2015 (UTC)
Or into the "quotations and allusions" section of bible? Kennelly (talk) 16:10, December 17, 2015 (UTC)
The Judas reference is Biblical (as the bg note says), but to my knowledge the practice of doing so with a goat is not. -- LauraCC (talk) 17:23, December 17, 2015 (UTC)
Merged with Metaphor. Tom (talk) 10:35, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

Removed Edit

Removed: Cochrane's bitter and sardonic reference to himself as a "Judas goat" for his betrayal of the Companion was almost the exact line heard in episodes of television shows in which actor Glenn Corbett was either a regular or a guest star. In the 1968 segment of Land of the Giants entitled "Weird World" in which Corbett guested, series star Kurt Kasnar delivers the line. And in a 1963 episode of Route 66 (a series in which Corbett later became a regular performer) titled "Somehow It Gets To Be Tomorrow", his co-star Martin Milner compares himself to a "Judas sheep... the one who leads the others into the chute."

Coincidence? -- Alan 14:32, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

Practice makes perfect Edit

Expressions don't get pages of their own, they get an entry on proverbs. Or in this case, I guess a background note. -- Capricorn (talk) 12:52, February 5, 2016 (UTC)

Support merge. -- Defiant (talk) 13:45, February 5, 2016 (UTC)
Second that. -- LauraCC (talk) 19:57, March 1, 2016 (UTC)
It's been over 3 months. -- LauraCC (talk) 19:40, May 12, 2016 (UTC)
My apologies, sulfur. I should've mentioned this at the same time you were adding genie to "metaphor". -- LauraCC (talk) 19:42, May 12, 2016 (UTC)