Talk: Absolute Candor (episode)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Absolute Candor (episode) article. For general discussion, go to Memory Alpha's Discussions or Discord. Click here to start a new discussion on this talk page.

Maintenance links

MA files from this episode (110)

Aftershow: TRR: "Absolute Candor"

Episode data module and titles check:

A: PIC
N: 1x04
P: 103
C: 772
CP: 4
CR: 4
CT: 964
D: 13
M: February
Y: 2020

Fingers are phones[]

This has been bothering me since the episode aired, but Picard takes a call with his combadge still on the jacket he isn't wearing at the time and that is across the room by sticking his finger in his ear. The sound effects make it seem like the combadge chirped and he answered somehow, but on what? - Archduk 3 19:43, February 14, 2020 (UTC)

I assumed that he was holding his combadge to his ears? It's a motion we haven't seen before (and perhaps a bit like how we handle modern-day devices), but not exactly something entirely out of line with how the technology works. Perhaps its also supposed to imply that Picard was trying to have a private communication via his combadge (instead of the speaker-mode we usally observe). -- Tadayou16 (talk) 09:46, February 15, 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, the combadge is clearly on his jacket, of course. Finger phones it is, then. -- Tadayou16 (talk) 09:47, February 15, 2020 (UTC)

Is it possible that the combadge responds to the gesture itself? Perhaps it's constantly scanning the "user", and the gesture of putting one's finger to one's ear is equivalent to tapping the combadge?

(This is, of course, purely speculative, and doesn't belong in the article.) —Josiah Rowe (talk) 04:47, February 16, 2020 (UTC)

The gesture he made is that of someone using an earpiece. I agree it's apparently anachronistic, but that's what he did. --TimPendragon (talk) 11:14, February 16, 2020 (UTC)

Narek does the same thing, but has a clearly visable earpiece in. JL isn't wearing a visable earpiece, so are we going with an implant them? - Archduk 3 16:04, February 16, 2020 (UTC)

Just because we don't see it - I don't think we get a clear shot of his ear when he's taking the call - doesn't mean an earpiece isn't there. --TimPendragon (talk) 16:40, February 16, 2020 (UTC)

We get enough clear shots to know there isn't a visable earpiece, which is why seeing one on Narek becomes important. Considering this is the only time, that I know of, a combage isn't broadcasting the other side of the conversation as well, a subdermal implant seems to be the only explanation beyond finger phones. - Archduk 3 16:49, February 16, 2020 (UTC)

It's just as likely to be a production oversight. Perhaps an earpiece was uncomfortable for Stewart, so they only put it in for the shot when he was "on the call," and we can't see it. Who knows? Why do we even need an explanation? --TimPendragon (talk) 16:53, February 16, 2020 (UTC)

We need an explanation because that's the whole point of this. We need an explanation because we're curious and interested. We need an explanation because it's there. - Archduk 3 17:00, February 16, 2020 (UTC)

I think it just might be a continuity mistake. I have seen this happen in other things like in The Avengers, they keep talking to each other from across the city but aside from Tony Stark, none of them seem to have any sort of device that would allow them to do so. Mseay222 (talk) 20:58, February 16, 2020 (UTC)

Continutiy[]

I removed the following notes from the continuity section:

The Ellison is likely named after Harlan Ellison, writer of the TOS: "The City on the Edge of Forever".
Considering the role he played in real world history, the Wallenberg class of starships is likely named in honor of Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg.
Similarly, the Nightingale is a reference to Florence Nightingale.
- In 2377, Harry Kim renamed the Kraylor Medical Transport 136 after Nightingale (VOY: "Nightingale").

These are likely better suited as notes on the respective ship and ship class pages, as they aren't exactly about continuity with other episodes and series. They may also be suited for the "Script" section, if anyone involved with the production makes comments about deliberate references. -- Tadayou16 (talk) 09:42, February 15, 2020 (UTC)

Most episode pages have these sorts of notes, as the episode page is the first place many readers will go. 31dot (talk) 09:49, February 15, 2020 (UTC)

Wondering whether there's some MA consensus on this, then? I love the "Continuity" sections, but the title becomes a bit meaningless when they are just turned into trivia dumps. I also think note bloat is a concern, and in general this wiki could possibly benefit from more concise information which directs to detailed articles, instead of mentioning and retelling everything, everywhere. But maybe these aspects are better suited for a meta discussion about MA? -- Tadayou16 (talk) 10:04, February 15, 2020 (UTC)

Every now and then there are pages with a Trivia section. If it's justifiable, I can't see why it wouldn't be a good alternative here. Pedronog (talk) 10:10, February 15, 2020 (UTC)

You are free to open up a general discussion about your concerns at Ten Forward, but I would urge you to consider that different people approach this site in different ways, what you see as bloated might be seen as helpful to other readers who don't wish to navigate to many different pages. We've been quite successful for over a decade at this. Tadayou16 note that we use a different indent system than other wikis, you should maintain your indent throughout a discussion. 31dot (talk) 10:12, February 15, 2020 (UTC)

Hope I'm doing the discussion correctly now. :) I'm perfectly willing to adhere to wiki standards, if they have been established. Which is why I asked about it. Your comment, 31dot, seems like you take my question a bit personally. But I hope you can see my point that any kind of trivia (such as what real-world things ships and classes are named after) doesn't really fit a section headlined "continuity". And an answer in the vein of "we've always been doing it this way" isn't really helpful, sadly. -- Tadayou16 (talk) 10:35, February 15, 2020 (UTC)

I've occasionally been pruning continuity sections for general interesting facts like that as well. I definitely feel like since Discovery first aired, an minority among the continuing influx of new users have tended to treat the continuity section as a trivia free for all. As a contributor of a decade plus I would say these newly created continuity sections are a lot less tight then those of say DS9. The notes listed here are very mild examples, but I think only the Nightingale connection with a strong claim to belonging in a continuity section. Also, Ellison is a pretty common name. -- Capricorn (talk) 11:17, February 15, 2020 (UTC)

My intent was not to say "we've always done it this way, so it's okay", but to just say that there are reasons things are the way they are. Not a reason to not change anything, just to consider other points. 31dot (talk) 11:48, February 15, 2020 (UTC)

Since Discovery started, I've also noticed the Continuity sections have started to amass basic details that happen in the episode. (i.e. "This episode depicts the death of [Character].") My opinion is Continuity is better served linking references to past episodes, and have been looking for where that discussion has been held and if a consensus has been reached. My suggestion is to remove bullets that recite plot points (specifically the "This episode depicts..." type notes.) - AJ Halliwell (talk) 15:39, March 27, 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Akiva Goldsman and Michael Chabon confirm the Ellison and Wallenberg references in this video: [1]

I'm adding the references to Ellison and Wallenberg class; I don't know whether, now that we have confirmation from a production source, that changes the calculus on whether they should be mentioned in the episode article. Anyway, here's a source to confirm, if you want one. —Josiah Rowe (talk) 02:42, March 31, 2020 (UTC)