Name Edit

Related to the whole United Nations (original) → New United NationsUnited Nations (second/third?) business...

Could not the person who said New United Nations just have been saying new United Nations. In other words, the current UN fell apart during WWIII, and it's replacement is the one that led to United Earth.

This would make more sense, and also be simpler (ala Occam's razor) —MJBurrage 03:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Q said "(n/N)ew United Nations" in "Encounter at Farpoint". In the first draft script (where the date is given as 2016, it's capitalized as "new United Nations." In the DVD subtitles to the episode (where the date is 2036), it's capitalized as "New United Nations." If any of that is of consequence. The "(n/N)ew United Nations" was gone by 2079, and was clearly "new" so it is unlikely to refer to a 90-year-old organization (that would last less than 43 more years).
Another organization noted simply as "UN" was listed on the information to SS Mariposa (it listed the ship's "UN Registry") from 2123. This heavily implies to me that there are three organizations, although I guess it's possible that the original UN co-existed for a time with the New UN (perhaps rival organizations? Interesting WWIII theory there...)--Tim Thomason 18:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge with UNEdit

As mentioned above, the final draft of "Encounter at Farpoint" capitalizes it as "new United Nations". (and for completeness' sake, so does the second draft). I find it very hard to look at that capitalization and imagine that the writers intended to posit an organisation called the New United Nations. In fairness, (I don't know what the most recent edition says, but) my third edition Star Trek encyclopedia does have an entry for "United Nations, New", but script overrides reference works for naming, so...
This would also help with the problematic last reference on the page, where the Mariposa is apparently mentioned to have an UN registry, but is mentioned here instead because of the timeframe -- Capricorn (talk) 00:06, February 24, 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we could rename this to "United Nations (new)". The term "new United Nations" still suggests a different, or at least successor, organization to the "old" United Nations, perhaps simply reusing the name. Or, we could merge as suggested and indicate that "new" was somehow used to describe the UN by 2036. Either way, the Encyclopedia's "New United Nations" could be noted as a bg note. 31dot (talk) 00:47, February 24, 2017 (UTC)
Oppose merge, as there is clearly suppose to be a difference between the UNs, even if it isn't the name. The Star Trek Encyclopedia (4th ed., vol. 2, p. 442) does still list this as UN, New. - Archduk3 04:47, February 24, 2017 (UTC)
Oppose for the same reason. --LauraCC (talk) 17:54, March 1, 2017 (UTC)

Okay, do I see an agreement then to rename the article to "United Nations (new)" here? -- Capricorn (talk) 14:00, March 9, 2017 (UTC)

Not quite, since I think there is an argument for keeping the current capitalization, with a bg note about the script, in that reference works are widely available to the public, while the scripts are/were not. We can choose, per policy, to use the Encyclopedia's capitalization because that is what readers would expect, similar to why we Rhaandarite instead of Vegan. It may not be what the writers were intending at the time, but this is clearly the way the franchise wants it to be taken now. - Archduk3 18:09, March 9, 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how that applies. Names from background sources are only permitted when canon doesn't give us a name, and it has. What's more, this would go beyond just using a permitted source for naming, it would be swapping out the intended name with an alternative interpretation. I can see how it might be desirable to keep the current name as a non-canon redirect though. -- Capricorn (talk) 19:57, March 9, 2017 (UTC)

You're drawing the capitalization from a background source, since the dialog itself doesn't make it clear if "new" is a descriptor or part of the name, which is why there's room for the argument that "New" United Nations is the intention "now", even if it wasn't "then". I'm not saying that this is a better argument than using the script capitalization, I'm just saying that either way we're going to have to address the discrepancy between the sources, so we might as well explore this a bit further. After all, it seems all other sources, background and apocrypha, bump the "new" to "New", and we do have the coveted first Google result for "New United Nations" right now, beating out the real UN. ;) - Archduk3 22:07, March 9, 2017 (UTC)

The way I see it, this is the exact same kind of case as the common situation where we hear an alien term on tv, but have to use the script to figure out how to spell it. It's just that the type of spelling detail we're looking at is capitalization.
As to why so many sources say "New United Nations", I personally don't see anything more significant in that then that the line is incredibly easy to interpret in a way that the script writers apparently didn't. I doubt everyone was working from some memo we're not privy to. And once the Okuda's don't notice that tiny detail it's game over, everyone trusts the encyclopedia to know what it's talking about. But me, I'd rather blaze the trail for accuracy than have a page place high on google. -- Capricorn (talk) 23:22, March 9, 2017 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that so long as we explain why we're using whatever title we end up with, it doesn't really matter what that title is, since even if this moves we would need the redirect because of the encyclopedia. Doing it this way though does avoid someone coming along later and blaming us for not doing due diligence on the matter. - Archduk3 02:58, March 10, 2017 (UTC)

Tbh I'm starting to get a bit confused about what either your position or goal is here. Practically, you seem to be ok with either name, which if true makes me read the discussion as skewing towards "United Nations (new)", because everyone either favors it or hasn't outright opposed it. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to continue this discussion, but I'm starting to lose my understanding of what you're trying to say, and I'd hate for nothing to happen to this just because a spinoff philosophical discussion died down without concrete suggestions-- Capricorn (talk) 17:54, March 12, 2017 (UTC)

I prefer the current title, but I'm not opposed to changing it with a bg note explaining why and the keeping the redirect. - Archduk3 20:05, March 12, 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I see. Thought there was more room there then I thought. -- Capricorn (talk) 12:51, March 16, 2017 (UTC)

I personally hate to use a () with a title unless absolutely necessary. Technically, there really isn't anything wrong with this title, and if there is a feeling of ambiguity with this title. It can just as easily be explained here, without introducing the parenthetic factor. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 13:11, June 23, 2017 (UTC)
Leave as is. --LauraCC (talk) 18:58, July 10, 2017 (UTC)
Also, I am fine leaving this as is, but, if it's to be moved, I'd rather see it merged into the regular United Nations article. While I'd prefer the dialog in question to have said "reinstated" or "re-something that wasn't simply 'new'" supporting the current title as something more than it probably is, the fact still seems to remain (as noted way way way up near the top of this talk page) that the ship's data had the field "UN registry" and not "NUN registry" (or "UN(n)" or "nUN"). --Alan del Beccio (talk) 02:57, July 14, 2017 (UTC)