Memory Alpha
Memory Alpha
Talk page help

Maintenance links

  • T: Darmok
  • A: TNG
  • N: 5x02
  • P: 40275-202
  • C: 208
  • D: 30
  • M: September
  • Y: 1991
Memory Alpha talk pages are for improving the article only.
For general discussion, please visit Memory Alpha's Discussions feature, or join the chat on Discord.

Shaka, and Casey, at Memory Alpha

I'm going to go out on a limb here. I've removed the following line from the Background section:

The quote "Shaka, when the walls fell" has a direct English translation: "Casey, at the bat"

Not because I don't think it's true - I've followed the link and I see the connection. I just don't really think it qualifies as a 'direct English translation' for precisely the reason that the Tamarian metaphors caused problems. It's dependent on the culture of the person reading it. Granted, most 'western' English-speaking people could probably hazard a guess from 'at the bat' that Casey is something to do with baseball. But it might not necessarily have the immediate resonance in other English-speaking cultures that it does in America. Perhaps someone could suggest a more globally-understood reference? - Kaitiaki 20:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

How about "Napoleon at Waterloo"? -- 16:36, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Linguistic Errors

This episode is sometimes used by linguistics teachers to aid in students' understanding of how languages work and evolve.

I wonder where this information comes from. I discussed the episode with some friends, who study linguistics. They considered it poorly thought-out. It seems like the author of the episode understood little about linguistics in general. Here are some of the problems:

It seems like only Humans are willing to take an effort to understand the other one. The Tamarians don't seem to be interested at all in understanding how Human language works. Understanding each other is always a mutual intellectual effort and requires both sides to be willing to change their perspective or at least 'digest' their language for the other party. Isn't there such thing as a tamarian linguist? It is unlikely that there is no precedent in tamarian history for the misunderstanding portrayed here.

The biggest error is that it would be impossible for tamarians to teach the language to their offspring without using some kind of intermediate language. How would Tamarian babies learn the language? What would be the first metaphor a Tamarian baby would utter? What is the the Tamarian equivalent for mama? In such a society, there must have been certainly be some kind of children language, which works wihout the refrence to mythological concepts, so little children with yet no knowledge of history can talk with their parents. In that case, this language would be perfectly suitable for communication with foreign cultures.

While I don't agree with your reasoning, you are correct that this statement needs a citation. -- Jaz talk 17:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps this will suffice as a citation: Karen Landahl, Linguist, 1951-2003, University of Chicago - Intricated talk page 19:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
You assume they must teach their children language. If they had an inherited, genetic memory they would completely lack the need to communicate in a simple, child-like manner. In fact, as I see it, if they had a genetic memory, then this is exactly the sort of language that would evolve. We tell stories and use analogies as a method of presenting not only facts, but the feelings and complex Human experience associated with life. The Tamarian language operates at this level and if you had a complete, built-in English language and mythos, speaking in metaphor would be advantagous. Similar to how you might speak to your immediate family members—your shared history makes explaining your feelings and positions on even a moderately complex subject as simple as a look. With a more general shared history, you, of course, have to give a bit more than a look. Certainly not canon, but interesting nonetheless, I think. —BradleyEE 03:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ on the statement following "It seems like only Humans [as opposed to Tamarians] are willing to take an effort to understand the other one. [...]" - to me it seems to be a clever way of pointing at a real-world issue: A large number of US citizens travels abroad knowing nothing but English, and expecting everybody else to learn a sufficient amount of English to be able to communicate with them - an attitude considered arrogant and lazy ("why bother, everybody speaks English, right?") by most of the locals. This episode plays on that theme, with the "lazy" ("why bother, there's an universal translator, right?") members of the UFP being forced to learn the foreign language. 21:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the same applies to ANY foreigners entering a foreign country; a certain precentage of them are unwilling to learn the culture and the language (or at least realize that their language won't be spoken there). It has nothing to do with the fact that the foreigner is American or not. To which, I have no issue with "It seems like only Humans [as opposed to Tamarians] are willing to take an effort to understand the other one. [...]"; unless it's the Tamarian way to assume that the other side's just gonna do all the work, I doubt a peaceful, diplomatic liaison would have sent someone out who is unwilling to learn more about the other side. .... I also agree that, while this is a pretty creative language, it's rather inefficient. I mean, let's assume that Tamarians have genetic memory (said above) or some sort of linked mind system that allows every Tamarian to know what even they're talking about. Despite that, events are pretty subjective; "Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra!" could also mean "two jerks came along and killed me, the beast of Tanagra". What about a Human metaphor like "Shigemitsu and MacArthur on the USS Missouri": does that mean "victory" or "defeat/surrender"? How can a language flourish if the same story can have multiple different meanings? -- 05:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
If you look at their metaphors, they are derived from their own ancient history, mythology, and works of literature. These would typically have a defined interpretation. Consider the wonderful scene in First Contact where Picard and Lily are arguing in the Ready Room. Lily says, "Captain Ahab has to go hunt his whale!" We the audience, as well as Picard, knows exactly what she means. A language built around metaphors would use ones that have a direct and clear meaning. Of course if I said, "The Boy who Cried Wolf" to Garak, then there might be a bit of a confusion, but that's unavoidable for any language. Or not, since I know his character. As for both sides' actions, it does seem odd that neither seemed to study the other's language at all before meeting, seeing as the UFP and the Tamarians have had "seven previous encounters" over the past 100 years, according to Data. Then again, I guess if they had thought to study, the episode would be a lot less engaging. Ddeschw 18:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Another problem is that the Tamarian language would seem to be inherently clumsy. Using an entire phrase to convey the meaning of a single word or concept may work as a plot device, but it would hardly make sense as the basis of an actual language. If saying "Shaka, when the walls fell" is necessary to convey a meaning of failure or danger, imagine how cumbersome it would be for a Tamarian to say something like, "we will need to work together to defeat that creature". Indeed, we never really hear what would amount to an actual Tamarian sentence, only a few words that, to the Human ear, sound like phrases. This brings up a related point. When the Tamarian captain and his subordinate get into an argument over what plan of action to take, they repeat several phrases back and forth and, as the exchange grows more heated, the phrases become clipped until Dathon finally ends it with one word ("DARMOK!", if memory serves). If "Darmok" can convey the same meaning as "Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra", it would make no sense to speak the entire phrase. The same would be true of the other Tamarian "words". 08:22, October 30, 2009 (UTC)
Yet even in English we insert seemingly unnecessary words. Many articles, forms and even tenses can be omitted from a sentence and still preserve most of the meaning, and synonyms add unnecessary words to an already large language, yet we insist on using them. Asking why the Tamarians use full phrases would be akin to an alien looking at chatspeak, which is quicker, easier and more concise, and saying "Why do the Earthlings insist on spelling out so many words? C U L8r is far more efficient."
It's likely that Tamarians use these 'unnecessary' words for the same reasons we do, to imply shades of meaning, depth, emphasis, propriety, and possibly contextual relevancy. Yes, one can say "Shaka" and imply "when the walls fell", but what about "Darmok and Jalad"? Darmok and Jalad can be, separately or together, either "on the ocean" or "at Tenagra", giving up to four separate meanings for the single word "Darmok", and "Uzani, his army" can be "at Lashmir", "with fist open" or "with fist closed". Depending on the circumstances, meaning can be easily implied by abbreviating, but it's likely that the Tamarian language is full of these variable metaphors that can convey surprisingly specific meaning based on the attached metaphorical 'suffix'. -- 17:27, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

The biggest linguistic hole I see is that the Tamarians somehow understand various small phrases ("his eyes uncovered", "his arms wide", "when it rises", etc.) but they can't figure out English's more complex use of such phrases--nor do they try to use them as a basis for communication. It's also astounding that the Tamarians haven't already resolved this communications difficulty, given their technology level is about equal to the Enterprise's, since it seems that every other race uses the Human style of communication. In any case, I don't think any of this is worth mentioning in the episode proper. It's one of over a hundred episodes of a TV show--it can't be perfect. 04:38, June 25, 2011 (UTC)

The Tamarians as we see them aren't speaking in phrases, even though they appear to Human ears as such. That is the whole point of Tamarian language as it is presented. Those "phrases" are actually supposed to be the equivalent of a single word or idea, thus parsing them in separate parts like "Shaka" and "when the walls fell" would be akin to taking the word "werewolf" and dividing it into "were" and "wolf", with neither part able to convey the meaning of the whole. Were the Tamarians just being unnecessarily verbose, no doubt a universal translator could have still understood their language, but they're not, thus the language difficulties presented by the fact that the Tamarians, seemingly, have no "unnecessary words". The real point of all this is that the whole "language of metaphors" idea is interesting at first blush, but makes no real sense if you start to think about it. As for chatspeak (forgetting for the moment that we're dealing here with spoken language), the example you cherry-picked works out great, but most meaningful conversations (none of which happen in chats, conveniently) would defy such a dramatic translation.-- 07:07, January 18, 2012 (UTC)
You're absolutely right. Instead of using words to make up sentences, the Tamarians are, in effect, using words to make up sentences to make up words. In essence, they have two languages, the first of which is a complete and perfectly functional language used merely provide a lexicon for the second metaphor-based language. Odd way of doing things...-- 08:04, January 18, 2012 (UTC)
Most arguments seem to skip over the fact that only 7% of Human communication is verbal, the vast majority of our meaning is conveyed through tone of voice, eye contact, posture, facial expression, inflection and even the location and time of day it is said. Is it such a strecth to imagine and alien culture has taken this to extremes to such an extent that the verbal language has become rudimentary and metaphor based, used only in the most generic way. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
How the children could learn the language: There are several possibilities. One of them is that this species might be telepathic. And a way for the children to understand the metaphors is by theatrical presentations and television series and films. Just like we do. I think that almost any Human child learns from television and films and plays before they read books. So I think that "the children of the children of tarma" learn the same way that we do.

I think somebody here said that the tamarians did not even bother to learn a federation language. But what if the Tamarians DID know the federation languages already? Picard seemed to be much more confused than Dathon. I remember two more episodes. I am not sure which one it is, but it was either "The Big Goodbye" or "The Ensigns Of Command". Deanna Troi, who advises Picard about Linguistics in both of these episodes... in one of those two episodes she said "They have learned several Federation Languages but theirs continues to elude us." .... ... AND if Dathon had NOT learned any Federation language (English in this case), I think he was trying to learn it. Picard tried his best to tell Dathon about Gilgamesh. Picard was using too many words but Dathon seemed to understand the story anyways. It is also possible that Dathon wrote down the "new" story that he learned into his log book. Didn't the Tamarian ship crew give Picard a copy of Dathon's log book?

And something else about Language. You are Correct. Only 7% of language is verbal and the rest is etc. Ever watch Tom and Jerry? SURE, they have learned English and even speak it fluently. Spike speaks perfect English. And a few episodes Tom and Jerry (usually Tom) sings and talks. There is that creepy "DONNNN'T YOUUU BELIEVE IT!" but there is also an episode where Tom says "Hey, What's Cookin?!" and then Toodles says "You are, Stupid!" ALSO, Tom and Jerry can READ AND WRITE in English! BUT, otherwise, they are speaking to each other without even speaking. In "The Year Of The Mouse", Jerry speaks in "Taps" music to another mouse. The other mouse automatically understands that that means that they are going to do the ultimate prank. In "The Unshrinkable Jerry Mouse", Tom is locked out. Tom bangs on the window and speaks in trumpets. It sounds like "Hey you, you need to let me in." He then threatens Jerry. Jerry responds with some musical "Who, Me?" and then Tom "says", "Yes, that's you!", and then Tom performs the "cut throat" gesture. In "Ah, Sweet Mouse-Story Of Life", Tom gets stuck in a long drain pipe - his head is in one end and his feet are stuck in the other end! Tom trumpets again, and somehow you just KNOW he is saying "Help me. I'm trapped and scared!" In "Haunted Mouse", Jerry steals Tom's nose and then Tom demands his nosere turned. Jerry instead gives him a radish.

I think you get the point.

I have been trying to teach my guinea pigs English. They have learned their names, the word "No", and a few other words and phrases. I am also teaching them how to tell time. I have a Westminster Chimes clock where they can see and hear it. While they do not speak English, I have learned their version of "No," and I can understand when they tell me they need food, water, or attention. They communicate with each other by forms of squeaking, chattering, squealing, and head movements.

Also I am trying to learn German, Japanese, and Russian. German is the easiest. And as for Japanese and Russian, I can barely understand "pictures", or Characters (Kanji) instead of Words (Romaji), ... But I am TERRIFIED about Russian's backwards letters!

In Correct (talk) 16:17, March 12, 2013 (UTC)

No linguists on the Enterprise?

There are over 1000 people on the Enterprise and they have not one linguist on board? Whoever at Starfleet selected Enterprise personal certainly sucks and should be fired. -- 05:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

they normally don't need one because 99% of all translations can be handled by the computer. in this case the translation was only partially complete, the words were translated but not the context.
They have Deanna Troi. She tries to help when they are having difficulty with another species or its language. She is very useful in the episodes The Big Goodbye, The Ensigns Of Command, and Darmok. Whenever a Ships Counselor is not available, they usually get an Ambassador during these types of missions. As for Star Trek: Voyager, Neelix appointed himself as ambassador stationed on U.S.S. Voyager. And even when they don't have an ambassador, any telepath or knowledgeable person might help. In Correct (talk) 16:25, March 12, 2013 (UTC)
Re-watching this on BBC America, I was immediately struck by that, especially since they showed "Tin Man" just the day before, with the super-telepath. Of cuourse, he's off whereever with Gomtuu, but surely there are others like him? Although, perhaps they might even have problems. But if they do initially learn the metaphors themselves via telepathy, perhaps he would be the ideal person to help them.


This episode is sometimes used by linguistics teachers to aid in students' understanding of how languages work and evolve.

Can we cite that with some examples of teachers, or something? For 8 months we have not had a citation, I am removing it until we can provide one. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

List of the metaphors

Would it be relevant to have a list of the metaphors used by Dathon and the other Tamarians? Interpretation would have to be quoted from the episode (e.g., "Picard inferred that he meant...."), naturally. -- Kojiro Vance | Talk 16:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is this. --Jayunderscorezero 21:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

End of episode

The episode ends with Picard in his Ready Room reading Homeric epics pondering whether he would have sacrificed his life in hope of communication.

No, it doesn't. The episode ends with Picard paying homage to Dathon's religious or cultural beliefs by mimicking his gesture of touching the knife and then touching the forehead. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Then be bold and fix it. This is a wiki.– Cleanse 03:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Didn't he do BOTH?! He is reading, then Riker enters, then he tells Riker that he is uncertain if he would have done the same, and then Riker leaves, and then he performs the ritual. In Correct (talk) 16:30, March 12, 2013 (UTC)

Firing Phasers through the Torpedo Bay?

Anyone know why this took place? Any in-script reason? Any other reason? Satyrquaze 18:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Scimitar hasn't been active lately, too bad, he added it March 25 2005, we could have asked him what the heck. As far as I can tell, it didn't happen. Maybe Scimitar thought he saw the phaser beam coming out a torpedo door. What really happened according to the script and transcript is that Worf and Geordi "selectively target[ed] the amplification pathways around the [heavily shielded] [polarity coil] generator [aft of their warp drive]", by "adjust[ing] the prefire chambers. That'll give us the focus we need". --TribbleFurSuit 20:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I think if you take a look at the pictures (copy link into address bar), then you might agree that he might not be the only one who 'thought he saw the phaser beam coming out a torpedo door.' --Alan 21:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Holy crap... that's a focused, selectively targeted phaser? Looks like they adjusted the prefire chambers to just asplode! Welp, that settles it. Anyway the answer to the question seems to be that there's no explanation whatsoever for why this didn't just fire from a regular phaser emitter. --TribbleFurSuit 21:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep. It's just written off as a goof in the Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion.– Cleanse 22:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
You know, it may be a homage to TOS. After all, they never could figure out where the phasers and photons were coming from, I seem to remember a variety where a given weapon emanated from. I'm sure this though will have been fixed by the remastering. -- Kooky 20:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we could mention the weird phaser firing itself in the continuity section? Satyrquaze 16:26, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

As long as it's not worded too nitpicky, it could be mentioned, especially if it is mentioned in the TNG Companion.--31dot 20:21, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

"Darmok" in syndication

So, I've been watching TNG on WGN in the United States. They aired "Darmok" after "In Theory" and before "Redemption I and II." Everything from the stardate to the production code place it squarely after "Redemption II" and "Ensign Ro." It's the first episode where Picard wears the suede-jacket uniform. So, why is it aired in season 4 in syndication?

I thought it was a fluke, but Sci Fi (or Syfy, if you prefer -- I don't) aired it the same way. Does anyone know why this is? I know sometimes shows get aired in production order rather than original air order when they're syndicated (or re-syndicated, in this case), but there doesn't seem to be a reason for this... and now two different networks who have nothing to do with each other aired them the same way.

Please, shed some light. I dare you. :)


Such a challenge :P
Most of the time, the two part episodes will be rearranged so that they can be shown together -- if they had shown Redemption I after In Theory, viewers would not be able to watch Redemption II immediately afterwards, as Redemption I would have been the final episode in the 'marathon block' on Monday on Syfy -- and viewers would not know when to return to complete the cliffhanger, since some might assume the next week at the same time, when the marathon blocks might place Redemption II much earlier in the evening at the beginning of the block. Other syndications would avoid leaving the cliffhanger at the end of a week, or possibly make a special event out of showing the two-parter together.
Anyway, hope this cleared this up for you. -- Captain MKB 02:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense, actually. And, now I can't remember if Darmok aired at the end of the week, or not, on WGN. I should've thought of that. Thanks! :) -Ip.

Russell T. Davies

I'm not sure I see the relevance of the note about Russell T. Davies under "Reception". Davies has no connection with Star Trek and hasn't even seen the episode. I think it'd be better placed on the Doctor Who page, as it shows a connection between the franchises. But not here IMO.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 09:13, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

Since no one objected I removed the note. Here it is for future reference:

  • The potentialities of this episode's premise led Doctor Who writer and producer Russell T. Davies to write the episode "Midnight" for Doctor Who. "I've seen lots of Star Trek: The Next Generation, I think it's a lovely show - but there's one episode, the billing for which is so fascinating I've actively avoided ever seeing it," Davies explained. "I love the idea so much, I'd rather think about it. Forever. The episode is called 'Darmok', and the synopsis simply says that Captain Picard is trapped on a planet with an alien who can only talk in metaphors. Wow. That sounds brilliant. How does that work? What happens? How does it end? I've got no idea - not seen it! But it keeps resonating with me. I've just looked up its TX date, and it's almost 20 years old. I've been thinking about that story and its potential for almost 20 years! Would it have sustained itself for that long in my head if I'd seen it on BBC2, long ago in 1991? I think the mystery keeps the concept alive. Here I am, still wondering, right now! And I can see the idea bleeding into my own work. In 2008, I wrote a Doctor Who episode called 'Midnight'. Is it like 'Darmok'? I don't know. But stripped down to its essentials, it's a story about a hero, an alien, and words. That's practically the same billing. Maybe the two shows are profoundly different, but I know for a fact that all those years of wondering about 'Darmok' led me to that script." (SFX, issue #200, p. 140)

Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 10:38, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

I somehow missed this. I find the removal of the note totally absurd and utterly objectionable!! I feel very strongly about it being returned, as it adds a great deal of interest to the page. The relevance is completely clear, IMO; Davies is discussing this episode's premise, for heaven's sake! How much more blatant do you want it to be?! . --Defiant 12:30, November 7, 2011 (UTC)
Maybe some of the material regarding the connection between this episode and "Midnight" could be edited out/summarized, but the enthusiasm for the plot that Davies has should be on the page. --Defiant 12:33, November 7, 2011 (UTC)
I've changed the note to what I now think it should be. If this is still problematic, there's nothing stopping us from discussing it further, but I really feel strongly against the extremist step of removing very reasonable edits! --Defiant 22:49, November 7, 2011 (UTC)
The part about "Midnight" should still be at Doctor Who, since apparently this episode's billing inspired that one. - Archduk3 23:04, November 7, 2011 (UTC)
It is not "extremist" to remove an edit that someone has a valid reason for feeling is irrelevant. Cleanse did not do so arbitrarily or for spite. You have an equal right to disagree and attempt to persuade Cleanse otherwise.
That said, I see Cleanse's point. While the quote is adequately documented, it seems to be someone's opinion of the premise of the episode and how it influenced their work on Doctor Who. The influence on Doctor Who is not relevant to Star Trek(at least outside the Parody & Pop Culture pages, perhaps it could be there) and since Mr. Davies claims he has never seen the episode in almost 20 years I'm not sure what that adds to the page. If he had seen the episode, then I might feel differently. Maybe there is some way to keep this quote, on this page or otherwise, but I can't say I disagree with the original removal as I see things now.--31dot 23:09, November 7, 2011 (UTC)
As I said, that's absolutely absurd! The note is about the episode's premise. So what?! We have notes about cast info only, story only, production only; just because the notes are exclusive to one element of the episode doesn't mean they're irrelevant. --Defiant 23:25, November 7, 2011 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Archduk: that the info about "Midnight" should remain at Doctor Who. Meanwhile, the now-edited info about how such a respected writer as Davies was impressed by this episode's premise should stay here, as it's both interesting (at least, IMO) and entirely relevant to the installment. --Defiant 23:35, November 7, 2011 (UTC)

I stand by my initial comments. Davies was not involved in the production of the episode. Nor has he even seen the episode. Why is his opinion any more valid than any other person off the street? I can find many websites where random people discuss the episode's premise. That doesn't make them any more notable.

As I said in my initial comment, it's a good quote for the Doctor Who page (so I'm glad Archduk3 moved it there), not so much for this page.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 23:46, November 7, 2011 (UTC)

It's more valid because he, unlike Joe Bloggs, is a notably respected figure in the television industry (much of whose work also happens to be in the same genre as Star Trek – sci-fi/science fiction). For that matter, why do we have notes about awards won by the various episodes? Your same arguments are obviously also true of them; the judges have nothing to do with the making of the episode (if they did, in fact, they'd be excluded from the nomination process). As is evident in the quote from Davies, the reason he hasn't seen the episode is because he was so thrilled by its premise. That says a lot for the episode, and the fact that he hasn't viewed the installment only shows his enthusiasm for its synopsis even more. --Defiant 23:59, November 7, 2011 (UTC)
Mr. Davies' importance is why his comment can be on the Doctor Who page. Awards are a recognition of the quality of the episode or its personnel's work given out by groups for whom that is their purpose(in whole or part) and by definition involves the work itself and not merely the idea of the work.--31dot 00:13, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
Okay. We clearly have differing viewpoints of what is and is not permissible, with your perspective being very rigid and conservative. Since this website is not run by a democratic system but rather by a consensus, I suggest we try to find a compromise & some middle ground, in order to resolve this matter. --Defiant 00:25, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
Since Davies at least does work on sci-fi television series whereas journalists generally don't, I'd say this note is certainly more relevant to this episode article than, say, the notes about the reviews of "The Man Trap" that are on that page are relevant to that episode. --Defiant 00:36, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
I'm willing to have a discussion about this, without the unnecessary and personal commentary. That said, I think this has far more to do with Doctor Who and Russell T. Davies than this episode. If anything, the entire quote should be on Doctor Who with a brief blurb here with a link. - Archduk3 00:48, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
Okay, yeah; I'd be happy with even just "a brief blurb". I'm entirely not sure what you mean about "the unnecessary and personal commentary", though (I actually had to reread that passage, and sort of did a double-take on it, as I was uncertain I'd read it properly the first time); I don't think anyone here's guilty of that, Archduk. IMO, Cleanse and 31dot have been sticking to the subject very well and not taking things personally, if that's what you mean. The entire quote from Russell T. Davies doesn't seem to be relevant to Doctor Who (I'm not sure if you know this, but he has worked on other shows). I've tried to limit the quote to what is relevant, on the Doctor Who page. --Defiant 00:58, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
"Personal commentary" would be unsolicited interpretations of other users actions and views. as "totally absurd and utterly objectionable" and "very rigid and conservative". While probably not intended to be inflammatory, it could be read that way, and is certainly unnecessary for your point.
The quote is Davies' thoughts on the blurb and how it lead to his writing of the episode "Midnight". Without the early context his statements at the end seem a bit weird, and suggest he doesn't like or watch Star Trek, since he has had 20 years to see it. Saying here that Davies liked the blurb so much that he deliberately didn't watch this episode, and then later wrote a Doctor Who episode with a similar premise as he saw it, because of the blurb is what I would say what's relevant to this episode, with the quote itself being context for the writing of the DW episode. - Archduk3 02:03, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
Try as I might, I can't make grammatical head nor tail of the second paragraph in that post. Could you perhaps clarify more what you mean? Dignifying your first paragraph with a response would just seem to keep the argument going, which is not what I want; just let it be known that I'm not the first to make such "personal" statements, though that's not to approve of the comments I've made, either (nor to disapprove of them, for that matter; they are what they are). So, I suggest we keep bygones as bygones, unless you want to face the truth of the debate – that I'm not the only one to have made personal remarks. And as for the "totally absurd and utterly objectionable" statement, that was basically just to let Cleanse that know someone did have a considerable objection. No offense was meant, whatsoever. I'm pleased that, with it, I clearly got my point across and was understood, as we then went on to have this discussion. I don't expect that the language used in that phrase was "too" strong but I'm sorry if, on the off-chance, you did find it to be, Cleanse. :) --Defiant 02:19, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
[edit conflict] - "The entire quote from Russell T. Davies doesn't seem to be relevant to Doctor Who... [and] I've tried to limit the quote to what is relevant, on the Doctor Who page."
"The quote is Davies' thoughts on the blurb and how it lead to his writing of the episode "Midnight". Without the early context [of the quote] his statements at the end seem a bit weird, and suggest he doesn't like or watch Star Trek, since he has had 20 years to see it." In the edited quote he's clearly saying he doesn't know what's in the episode, but not why. Editing the quote down removes information that is relevant to what is said later, hence the early context is needed. All we should say here is: Doctor Who writer and producer Russell T. Davies liked the billing blurb for this episode so much that he deliberately didn't watch it, saying "I love the idea so much, I'd rather think about it. Forever." 20 years later Davis wrote a Doctor Who episode with a similar premise, as he saw it. "I would say [this is] what's relevant to this episode, with the [full] quote itself being context for the writing of the DW episode." - Archduk3 02:43, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
Great; thanks for that. I understand what you mean more, now, and agree that it may indeed be useful to include the entire quote. Also, I still think it'd be a good idea to add a blurb here, with a link. This seems like a great plan and I'm glad we're making progress. :) --Defiant 02:51, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
I've changed the note to reflect the suggested changes. We should also find a way to say, "For more info, look here," sort of thing, so that the reader is pointed toward the bit on the Doctor Who page. --Defiant 03:08, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
I'm much more comfortable with Archduk's suggestion or something similar.--31dot 03:20, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
I've added a link to the full quote on the DW page in text. the wording and location of it could be tweaked though. - Archduk3 03:23, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
@31dot, what is your comfortability with Archduk's suggestion more than – the way the note is currently written? Because it's now almost exactly what Archduk suggested. There's slight differences between the two versions, but I have made each of those changes for very precise reasons. We can go through them all, if you wish. Is there any difference that you find particularly objectionable? --Defiant 03:34, November 8, 2011 (UTC)


Pure coincidence that the title of this episode backwards is "comrade" (kind of)? I know – we need a ref. What a friend I have in me--Archer4real (talk) 11:26, November 7, 2014 (UTC)


This may not be worthy of inclusion on the page, but I thought it would be worth mentioning at least here. On the July 11, 2017 episode of Jeopardy!, the last two Double Jeopardy categories were "Shaka" and "When the Walls Fell". For confirmation, please see the J! Archive page. I also snagged a photo and placed it on Imgur here. Enjoy! -- 12:49, October 3, 2017 (UTC)

This could be mentioned at Star Trek parodies and pop culture references (live action television). 31dot (talk) 12:54, October 3, 2017 (UTC)
And in fact is. :) But the photo might be a good addition. --LauraCC (talk) 15:56, October 3, 2017 (UTC)
Cool, I was unaware of the pop culture reference page! Thanks! -- 16:13, October 3, 2017 (UTC)

Another guy

  • OK just for the information, which one is the operations officer when the guy passes Troi and Data on the bridge in 9:30? SketchFan98 (talk) 02:59, June 9, 2018 (UTC)