Speculative background info Edit

Being a newbie here, please forgive me if this is the incorrect place to discuss this topic. There seems to me to be a whole complicated mess of info on this entire site trying to point me where to put certain types of comments, some of which may even be contradictory. The reason this has been entered here on the talk page is because that is what the header at Ten Forward told me to do.

A post of mine in this article's background info was recently removed, the post being:

  • "In the scene in Picard's ready room in which Dr. Crusher and Picard have both become infected and are trying to resist one another, the camera zooms in as Crusher stands very close to Picard. Picard makes a very strange noise (not quite a laugh, not unlike throat-clearing) which may be intended to pass by censors a suggestion of where Crusher's off-screen hand might be!"

I can see where this might be considered speculative, however I will tell you where my feeling of justification for this addition came from:

  1. ) Other articles suggest things which are, technically, equally speculative, and even of a comparable nature to this particular comment (see example below).
  2. ) One criterion to me which might be useful in deciding if it is "too speculative" to publish is the following -- has it been stated by a member of the cast or crew in a documentary. Unfortunately I do not believe that to be the Memory-Alpha mantra, due to entries I have noticed such as the example below.
  3. ) I had noticed background info tends to largely focus on production issues/comments. This would be such a comment. Additionally, I'm not just making up my observation for fun. I've been a student of film/TV production for some time and I've seen the types of things directors will do to get an idea like this through censors. I honestly believe what I posted strongly enough that I feel the majority of others would agree.

In the article for "Wink of an Eye", note the following comment in the background info:

  • "The producers managed to slip past the censors the scene clearly suggesting that Deela and Kirk have just had sex. The captain is sitting on the edge of the bed, tugging on his boot, while Deela is busy brushing her hair."

I've watched all the documentaries and interviews present on the DVDs for TOS seasons 1, 2, and 3 as well as the first four films, including "Kirk's Women" (included in the collector's edition of Star Trek IV) which actually features an interview with Kathie Browne herself (Deela from "Wink of an Eye"). None of them ever allude to this fact so if we follow any sort of policy here like the one I referred to in #2 above, the Kirk comment should not exist either.

Basically the problem is this. I saw comments like that which led me to feel justified in adding a comment like mine. Other people will do the same. Do you really want them all to be put off from contributing at all when their comments are always immediately removed without any sort of healthy debate first? This is symptomatic of an underlying problem, which is that things slip through the cracks here all the time or the rules are not clear enough. Of course, things are expected to slip through the cracks in a place such as wikia. Honestly I believe mine happened to only be caught because I've been unfairly singled out to be watched by a particular senior user of this site.

Meanwhile let's ask ourselves, why wouldn't we want such information here? Perhaps we could put it in another subsection of the article. "Interesting Notes". Why wouldn't we want Trek fans to be able to see an organized list of a bunch of "huh, interesting" type things that other Trek fans have observed in the past? I enjoy reading that sort of stuff here the most!

If you can clearly express the rules to me, or point me to them, about why my comment is bad and the "Wink of an Eye" comment is fine, then please do. I don't really care whether it's there or not. But I do want to understand these ambiguous rules that this senior member has used to strip my additions (but not others') so that I can avoid spending my time trying to fluidly write additions that will ultimately be removed 10 minutes later.

Input welcome. Thank you. --Buster Kincaid 14:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason I have removed the note is that we are trying to clean up all of these background sections and remove speculative notes like that. I haven't gotten to "Wink of an Eye", but that note will probably also be going. I removed yours because I happened to see it when I was going through "Recent Changes". Unfortunetly, while this cleanup process is happening, it is very difficult to go by precedent set out in other episode articles, as mayn of them need clean up. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't the one to remove it, but when you see comments like that with an exclamation mark at the end (!), then that's not quite the style desired here at MA. That comment could be still worthwhile, but would need rewording so that it isn't so "excited" (for lack of a better word). I know that it doesn't really answer your question to the fullest, but perhaps it'll start on the right track. -- Sulfur 14:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sulfur - Thank you for the response. I can see this and I tend to agree. Again, I had seen exclamation marks in other articles when in "reality" sections like "Background Info" before. But I will avoid this in the future. However that didn't mean my comment should be entirely removed, possibly just adjusted like you said. In fact the portion of my comment preceding the parentheses is entirely factual (of course, feel free to question its noteworthiness alone).

OuroborosCobra - Thank you for the response. However, I still have to ask -- who is "we" and what do you define as "speculative"? How can you know everything that has ever been documented somewhere official about Trek? Maybe the "Wink of an Eye" comment has been documented, and neither of us knows it yet. Admittedly I can't say mine has either, but how do we *know*? What if someone adds something later that you think is speculative but that they just witnessed? This is why I tend to actually favor the "Interesting Notes" type of idea I suggested here. We already have a collection of articles for each episode, the perfect place to let people organize a list of fairly notable speculations. Along those lines, why not even allow separated nitpick lists, which many fans like to read? If this is the place for all things canon-Trek, what's the big problem with that being here off on the side? Make sure everyone knows the section is just that -- personal comments, in list form. I can't be alone in loving to read that sort of thing. And I can't be alone in not liking to have to read huge discussion threads to uncover it. I realize I'm questioning larger themes here that many before me have already discussed to death and drawn their own, currently-enforced conclusions about, but I may as well voice the opinion. --Buster Kincaid 15:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If someone can say where this documented proof is from, it can stay, like if it is from the Star Trek Companion or something. If not, when something looks like speculation, and there are alternative explanations (another problem of mine with this particular note), we have to draw a line somewhere, and say that this encyclopedia is not going to be a haven for fanboy speculation. I want to say that I respect that you believe this, and believe that their is basis in your belief based on your knowledge background, but I can think of at least 2 or 3 credible alternatives, so without some more official source, I would not put any of them in the article. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, very few of the background notes have any citings at all, so by that count, we should just simply remove them all. I do think that the Wink of an Eye one has merit, perhaps with some rewording such as:
  • "Note that the censors of the day seemed to have no issue with Kirk sitting on the edge of the bed, tugging on his boot, while Deela is busy brushing her hair."
In the same way, this could possibly be reworded to something such as:
  • In the scene in Picard's ready room in which Dr. Crusher and Picard have both become infected and are trying to resist one another, the camera zooms in as Crusher stands very close to Picard. Picard makes a very strange noise (not quite a laugh, not unlike throat-clearing) which may be intended suggest something going on off-screen.
Perhaps someday all of this can be cited. I don't anticipate that anytime soon though. -- Sulfur 15:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I would not have a problem with Sulfur's suggestion, as it makes clear that it is speculation, and does not try to guess what is happening off screen (as there are a number of possibilities). --OuroborosCobra talk 15:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, I have not yet been pointed to where these regulations exist. If you refer to Memory_Alpha:Policies_and guidelines#Content_guidelines, there really is no true set of rules for what can and cannot go into the 'background info'. What you will find is info saying IF you copied info from somewhere, CITE it (which is certainly a given rule). However, it says nothing about the case where you DIDN'T copy it from somewhere, and it says nothing about what can/can't be in such a background info section -- just that if it's not written from the perspective of someone inside the universe, it MUST be in such a background info section. These guidelines do not seem to intend to discourage people from adding seemingly relevant commentary, they just tell them where to put them and to make sure they're relevant and, if copied, have sources cited. If there is an unspoken rule about this I suggest it be spoken, in the guidelines somewhere, otherwise all your cleanup efforts will go to waste when it starts up again as it inevitably would/will. I don't feel the urge to press the addition of this particular comment but I wanted these discussions to take place, so thank you for participating. --Buster Kincaid 16:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to chime in here, the note at "Wink of an Eye" is valid as it describes an infamous scene (called the "boot scene") which, in fact, suggested that Kirk/Deela had just had sex. --From Andoria with Love 16:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Suggested according to whom? --OuroborosCobra talk 16:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
You did watch the episode, didn't you? ;) --From Andoria with Love 17:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

^ Exactly the kind of argument which demands more clear 'background info' guidelines.  :) --Buster Kincaid 17:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Shran, I did see the episode, but it is still speculating as to what we did not see off screen. Rather then say that they were sneaking it past the censors, it would be better to say may have been trying to, as we do not know the writers intent with certainty. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, yes, in that case, you're absolutely right. :) --From Andoria with Love 17:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
That one is also better than this one because I cannot think of another credible explanation, whereas in this episode I can. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

As long as we're arguing these semantics, re-read the comment that started this thread of discussion. I did in fact state "may be intended to". --Buster Kincaid 17:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

And all things considered if you still have issues, my rewording is still good. :) -- Sulfur 17:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
As I just said in my response to Shran, the problem here is that it is weak speculation in that I can think of other credible explanations for what the writers intended, so why should this get listed before them? We really don't want to list a million different speculations for one thing. The "Wink of an Eye" example is one where I cannot think of another credible explanation, although personally I would still prefer something more official on writers intent. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what are some other credible examples? Personally I can't think of any other reason why such a strikingly weird noise emanating from Patrick Stewart would have been left in, it's so stark it takes you out of the episode (me at least). Plus I tried to use words to say "MAY be intended to pass by censors a SUGGESTION of where Crusher's OFF-SCREEN hand MIGHT be." Don't worry, I won't beat this dead horse for long, but I'd still like to hear these other credible possibilities.  :) --Buster Kincaid 17:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Just plain her approaching him that way, without touching him, could have been cause for the noise. Later on in the series, it was revealed that Picard had feelings for Crusher, it is possible that it was planned out that way from early on, in which case just her actions, without any physical contact (especially if you factor in the effects of the polywater) would have been enough to make Picard make a noise. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Haha. True, that, and what if, that instant, whatever was going on off-screen is what placed that primal desire for her in his mind to begin with!!  ;-D --Buster Kincaid 18:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, there is a big difference in comparing the two episodes mentioned here: The TOS note is a production note with a logical progression. Kirk is wearing booys, the scene changes, and then, when the scene returns, Kirk is putting the boots on. This isn't "implying" he took his boots off, it establishes that he did take his boots off, leaving a definite story/plot question: what happened in the intervening time when his boots were off?
The TNG note is much more vague, because it is implying something going on offscreen during the scene, with a lot less in the way of establishing motion (i.e. we saw Kriks boot going on, we didn't see Beverly's hand going anywhere).
It would really be jumping the gun to say that removing the vague note here necessitates removing the other. -- Captain M.K.B. 01:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Issues Edit

  • Yar asks for a "team" to help her in the Observation Lounge when she finds Geordi, yet only a single person shows up.
  • Why is Riker the only person who seems to be able to will himself to not feel the effects of the virus? He is able to function normally while no one else is able to.
  • Everybody seems surprised and astonished that Wesley can use a tractor beam to repel things, but they did it in the original Star Trek episode "Who Mourns for Adonis."
  • After the intoxicated Geordi wanders out of sickbay, the bed he was on continues to show his lifesigns.
  • When Geordi is put onto a bed in sickbay there are two pillows - when he gets up to leave a little later they have disappeared.
  • When Data brings up a picture of the original Kirk-era Enterprise in conjunction with the log talking about the water-intoxicant, the picture is of the refitted movie-style Enterprise - not the original round-nacelled model that was involved in the events of "The Naked Time."
  • At the beginning, Picard says in his log entry they're moving at Warp 7, but the exterior shot shows them moving at impulse speed.--Reginald Barclay 10:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
When Riker incorrectly states that the crew were "sucked" out, Data corrects him by saying "Correction, sir. That's blown out." His use of the contraction "that's" seems to contradict his later established inability to use contractions. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Data's "Infection" Edit

Was Data really infected or just playing along. Surely as an Android, a biological infection would have no effect? I haven't seen the episode in a while, but i think Picard tries to explain this before Crusher interrupts him-- 01:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

He explains to Picard that his positronic systems are similar enough that the polywater can affect him as well. --Darth borehd 06:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Data explains it that way, despite the fact that it, along with some other stuff(for example that he will drip when damaged)seems to be more or less utter nonsense.Data is shown to be invulnerable to any bio agents and most physical damage in later episodes and the movies. I guess 1. The writers were developing the characters and still thought of data as somewhat biological ("chemical nutrients" for example) 2. Data would have solved the situation in Naked Now with extreme ease as ist was solely science and engineering related.

Why i write this?Well because I think that this episode, while being fun to watch, is almost apocryphal.

(Another example are the glass panels in engineering that prevented Riker from removing Wes, removed afterwards.....)
In other words, better don't discuss about Data here....its onscreen canon, and yet makes no sense when newer canon is Janeway states about understanding temporal paradox......don't even try to --Psychopyro

He wasn't affected, he just wanted to get laid. ;)--KrossTransmit on Holonet? 20:57, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

1967 Edit

In "Production History" and "Story and production" is written that this episode is based on an original script from 1967. It seems very unlikely to me, since this episode deeps in the characters. Wasn't TOS: "Assignment: Earth" originally intended as the second part of TOS: "The Naked Time"?

I'm removing "Story and production" section, since it presents only duplicate informations. Jackoverfull 22:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Frakes inconsistency Edit

Regarding the two comments from Frakes under Reception: it's certainly possible Jonathan Frakes changed his mind as the sources suggest. However, it should be noted that the "totally ashamed" quote is second-hand through Wil Wheaton and may have been misremembered. Maybe it should note something like "According to Wil Wheaton, Jonathan Frakes once called this episode..." Alternatively, if there is another source for the claim, that could help clear things up.– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 02:02, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Removed Edit

Baikonur Cosmodrome is in present-day Kazakhstan. It was the launching site of both Sputnik I on 4 October 1957, and the first manned flight by Yuri Gagarin (Vostok I) on 12 April 1961. This would indicate that Baikonur has had an active role in space flight for four centuries at the time of this episode.
The plaque contains a misspelling of Tsiolkovsky in Russian cyrillic, a confusion of the characters П and Л; as written, it would transliterate to "Tsiopkovsky." A more proper spelling would be "Циолковский"

The first note seems original research while the second one is already featured on the article about the dedication plaque. Tom (talk) 08:54, January 22, 2017 (UTC)