Nitpick Edit

"It is unclear why the bridge detachment decides to fan out to search for La Forge in the Holodeck. By all precedent, simply ending the program should have left any non-holographic elements alone inside."

This is a Nitpick:

  • Evidence: "By all precedent," really? Have they ever been seen to search the holodeck rather than simply ending the program? Was there any established reason why they must end the program to search?
  • Substance: The statement questions a judgment made by a fictional character. We know why they behaved this way, the writers decided it would be more dramatic.
  • Neutrality: The statement is subtly critical, "[could have] simply" is a good giveaway.
  • Placement: Placed in an episode page background section. Alright.

--bp 00:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The syntax of the edit was deliberately constructed to indicate an unresolved plot discrepancy, and to avoid the conjecture prohibited by MA's Nitpick policy. As laid out in the T&C, inconsistencies within produced canon material are valid additions to the appropriate section of the page, and are not usually considered "nitpicks."
  • Evidence: Every precedent on the show up to this point, with the exception of events taking place during holodeck malfunction, indicate that instructing the computer to end the program will remove all non-holographic elements. Citation of all the instances would be clutter.
  • Substance:This is an instance wherein the rules of the show's tech were circumvented in order to create a dramatic element (this is not the first time the Holodeck "rules" have been bent in order to do so; see holodeck) but as such, is a clearly valid note for the episode's continuity section. We are to assume that there is an in-universe reason, as Worf does make the decision, but as stated in the entry the reason is UNCLEAR, especially given the urgent and dangerous nature of the occasion.
  • Neutrality: In issues of continuity, neutrality's constraints are vague. Again, leeway seems to be granted by the MA nitpick policy for non-editorializing content, and again, the word "unclear" renders benefit of the doubt to the show.
A good illustration: the sudden change in Dr. Crusher's hairstyle and uniform between "Best of Both Worlds" parts I and II is clearly a continuity error, and one could be called "nitpicky" for pointing it out, but anachronism is permissible under the T&C as a show note. Cinemastique 20:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

First, the statement asks a question for which we all know the answer considering the note is production POV. The writers/production staff wanted it that way, for drama, special effects, or maybe so Riker would see the shape and make the connections. It isn't at all "unclear" why the characters didn't end the program. Second, the statement questions the judgement of a fictional character. There is no reason why Riker or Worf must turn the holodeck off, they didn't. That they could have, or that you think they should have is irrelevant, it was their call to make and they did not. There are other instances where the holodeck was searched while a program was running rather than ending it, for example, TNG: "Hollow Pursuits". Furthermore, your argument above contains a number of false assertions: "This is an instance wherein the rules of the show's tech were circumvented in order to create a dramatic element." No they weren't, it was a decision made by characters. The holodeck could be left on or turned off, and they decided to leave it on. "In issues of continuity, neutrality's constraints are vague." No they aren't, judgement and criticism are prohibited. "...renders benefit of the doubt to the show", that is a judgement or no benefit or doubt would need to be rendered. --bp 21:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

By your argument, any citation of an error in in-universe continuity should be edited from the wiki, either for an off-script character decision or because pointing them out is tantamount to "criticism." To quote the T&C page: "Almost all information on Memory Alpha is trivial. Setting a threshold of 'too trivial for inclusion' is difficult. /edit/ Noting a occurrence that contradicts a well-established fact is not a nitpick, but carefully consider where it should be placed, and don't criticize."
Speculation is prohibited, (which is a shame, because conversations like this one are fun as all get-out), but the circumstances in the comedic TNG: "Hollow Pursuits" were hardly an emergency scenario with lives at stake.
I believe we find ourselves in a gray area borne of two completely different interpretations of the scene. I welcome your suggestions on a way to properly negotiate a compromise: How would you frame the issue at hand to make it fit for inclusion?

Cinemastique 03:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It's simple and has already been discussed and shouldn't have to be discussed with every new user that comes along. You can't speculate here because there are way too many ways something can be explained. You might think they should just turn off the holodeck. Why not just transport the aliens to an area within sickbay with a forcefield? Would make sense since they need to be cured of their affliction. Too many differing reasons are why nitpicks, such as yours, are not allowed. — Morder 04:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You imply that I'm not the first new user to make this observation, and I probably won't be the last, since it's apparently (^^^) a valid point of interest. I admit to frustration any time a device with an on/off switch is causing trouble, and said device isn't just turned off, but that is criticism. I'm still unconvinced this is a nitpick, when things like the entire paragraph listing holodeck physics discrepancies (holodeck) are not. At the same time, I do realize that creative license can account for a lot in science fiction, and that not everything has to be retconned or fanwanked into making perfect sense. The line is tough to judge. Cinemastique 14:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It's simple again. When you make something up to fit your idea of what should have happened or what could have happened you're speculating or if you're complaining about something that's a nitpick. I can do it too and then we'd have pages full of everyone's differing viewpoints on what they should have done. I already pointed out a valid alternative to your statement of turning off the holodeck. Where does that stop? Who gets to decide what is ok speculation and what isn't. In response to your entire paragraph...You have to understand that there are a lot of notes on this site that are still speculation and nitpicks and haven't been removed yet or possibly rewritten. So you can't use any existing pages as evidence for your cause because this policy was made after much debate and discussion long after the site had been started. When we find them we generally remove them to a talk page for discussion.
However, for instance, there are holodeck physics discrepancies that are valid, "holodeck matter can't leave the holodeck" (as stated in one episode), yet wesley crusher walked off the holodeck wet, or picard walked out with lipstick on his lips (or cheek) or data walking out with a sheet of paper is contradicted by picard throwing a book out and it disappears that is a contradiction and is pointed out. (personally I don't care for even noting contradictions). We have a direct statement made by a character that is contradicted in another episode by another character. Anyway, it's nitpicky since you're stating something that may seem obvious to you but since we don't know goes through the minds of fictional characters it wasn't obvious to them. Say for instance they could have shut down the holodeck but for some reason holodeck controls were offline. You could then say..."why don't they shut down power to the deck instead?"...or "why don't they shut down power to the ship then the holodeck won't function at all". All are valid methods of finding the aliens since the end result is the same - we're not going to list them all and we're not going to list one. Since this is a community and this decision was arrived to at much debate and has been decided to by the community you are expected to follow community guidelines any additions that do not follow those guidelines will be removed. I will not continue further as the communities point has been made, and your points were made long before you got here by other users - it was decided to not allow it. — Morder 20:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Dude, relax. This page is called discussion for a reason. As you've pointed out once in your first response and abundantly above, I am new here, but there's no need to rant or to be condescending. I've posed my issue and asked politely for advice and suggestions-- I know what is "expected" of me, I've read the T&C. For someone representing a community, your post has "What's wrong with you n00B" written all over it. I haven't once implied that you don't understand something that's "simple," because I don't presume to insult your intellect. Cinemastique 01:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Uncited Edit

I removed the following note, as it has been uncited since at least April. It sounds plausible, so if someone finds a citation, feel free to re-add it:

  • It took four make-up artists six hours to apply the full Tarchannen III species make-up to LeVar Burton. In fact, it was the longest make-up ever done on TNG.

Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 05:03, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

The note has been returned, with citation.– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 01:41, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

Timestamp of the Star Trek Logo easter egg Edit

In the production section, it states that on the DVD at 16:27 you will see for a single frame the Star Trek logo on a computer readout in engineer. However, on my DVD (the Fourth Season DVD set released in 2002 (, that single frame is at 17:08. I am going to change it, but if anyone knows which DVD set the 16:27 refers too, please edit i.The preceding unsigned comment was added by Enderminh (talk • contribs).

The note originally said 7:08 (which I see now was probably a typo for 17:08), but when I checked on my copy it was at the 16:27 mark. My copy is also 2002, but Region 2. I have no idea why they'd be different. Are we sure it doesn't appear twice - at 16:27 and 17:08? It was damn hard for me to locate it the first time. ;-) If not, we can list it as a Region 1/2 difference.– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 22:45, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
PAL v NTSC. PAL speeds up the episodes due to the differing frames per second rate. -- sulfur 23:00, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Ah, makes sense. I changed it accordingly. Enderminh 23:48, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tech explanation Sulfur, and thanks for updating the page, Enderminh.– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 05:00, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

Error Edit

I think for some reason, they should note a Error in this Episode. Although Lejiten and La Forge are cured, they never cure any of the Away Team's, so they could be infected. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

We do not note errors per the nitpick policy; and just because we didn't see them cured doesn't mean they weren't. 31dot (talk) 22:25, January 14, 2013 (UTC)

Planet scenes on tape instead of film? Edit

Starting from the holodeck scenes (around 28:10 for the Netflix version), I noticed that whenever the planet (holo-simulated or "real") was filmed, it was done all in tape, as shown by the perceived higher frame rate and slight lack of color/line resolution. This differs from the series' typical method of recording to film, then transferring to tape for post-production effects and editing. I assume this had to do with supporting the fake UV lighting effect mentioned elsewhere in the article, but does anyone know any additional information or sources about this? 17:58, May 11, 2013 (UTC)

Type of log? Edit

The video log that they view in the episode doesn't seem to be documented separately on its own page (maybe it is and I just can't find it). However, there also doesn't appear to be a category for it on the log page. Is it a mission log, like what is currently linked in the summary? The log itself says "Away team sensor log" when viewed, and is attached to the USS Victory. Here's the text of what Brevelle said:

"Tarchannen Three investigation, stardate 40164.7. Ensign Anthony Brevelle recording. Lieutenant Susanna Leijten in command."

It appears that, in order to incorporate the log, we need to:

  • add page for "away team sensor log" and ensure it's included on the log page
  • create an instance of the log for the Victory, with text "Away team sensor log, USS Victory"

I'm mentioning it here to get feedback. Thebilldude (talk) 00:07, March 6, 2017 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.