FA nomination (12 Jul - 12 Aug 2007, Failed) Edit

Self NominationI rewrote the summary for this article a couple of months ago, replacing a rather short one with the one now there. Several people have added onto it, and fixed my typo errors. I think that it has enough to become a Featured article. -Nmajmani 18:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Nmajmani

Oppose. 1.) The Summary is sufficient in length and scope, but the writing is somewhat awkward, it reads literally as a summary of every single thing said or done in the episode. I'd rather see that it read more fluently. 2.) Only two memorable quotes? It wasn't a very memorable episode, I admit that, but surely there were a few more lines worth remembering? 3.) The article lacks almost any Background Information. There should be far more about how the episode came to be. I'm particularly thinking about development of the story and script, creation of sets and costumes (19th century), etc. Allow me to suggest the Background Information section of the "Yesterday's Enterprise" article as good example. Ottens 12:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
What would be the best source of background infromation. As for the summary, I'll clean it up a bit. And for quotes, I'll watch the episdoe today and add more. -Nmajmani 13:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Nmajmani
There are several behind-the-scenes works published for Voyager: a book by James Van Hise, "Trek, the Unauthorized Story behind Star Trek: Voyages" or something. I don't remember the exact title. The "Star Trek Voyager Companion" may also offer information. And allow me also to say that, not all articles have "feature" potential. There may simply not be enough material out there to make this article "featured" quality. For example, just hit the "Random page" button and you'll find plenty of pages that include all available information on the subject, yet due to the limited ammount of information available, they'll never achieve the quality that a featured article should have. Ottens 11:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I spent all of yesterday watching Background info, and could only ick up two or three background points particular to "Ship in a Bottle". Do you think that perhaps I should just not try any harder, because there seems to be very little out there on this episode. I'll still be looking at the Star Trek Encyclopedia today, where the Okudas added some background stuff under some articles. -Nmajmani 12:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Nmajmani
Just as a tangential comment, this episode is often said to have been affected by negotiations with the estate of Arthur Conan Doyle related to the show's use of the Sherlock Holmes characters in "Elementary, Dear Data". If there's any authoritative source that describes that situation (without getting into the minutiae of copyright and trademarket law) then that's certainly one aspect of this episode that ought be addressed in its Background Information section. --TommyRaiko 13:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me the errors in my above comments, I confused this with the Voyager episodes nominated below. I meant to refer you to behind-the-scenes books for Star Trek: The Next Generation. Of help may be Trek, the Unauthorized Story behind Star Trek: The Next Generation by James Van Hise, Star Trek: The Next Generation, The Continuing Mission" by Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens, the Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion, etc. Ottens 14:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the book references. Perhaps there is something in the Shelock Holmes website regarding this. I'll search around. -Nmajmani 16:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Nmajmani

Inactive for more than seven days. Opposition unresolved. Nomination unsuccessful. --From Andoria with Love 06:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Clement von FranckensteinEdit

Clement von Franckenstein ? -(anon)

  • Yes. He played a gentleman in the episode. -Platypus Man | Talk 19:29, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Peer review Edit

I was trying to improve this one to get it to Featured Article Status. Can anyone tell me if I missed anything. I spent about an hour and a half to write the summary while watching the episode, pausing very frequently. Any Suggestions? -- Nmajmani 01:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Nmajmani


Does anyone have any idea what this sentence from the summary is trying to say?

Moriarty gets angry of the being of Picard.

I'd like to fix it, but I have no idea what it means. - Bridge 22:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the whole main of the summary and it is supposed to mean that Moriarty is asngry that Picard exists in a corporeal form, in other words, that he is 'real'. He is angry that he is nothing more than a hologram, whereas picard exists. Hence, He is angry that Picard is. --Nmajmani 23:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete edit Edit

Just a note to say, I've been copyediting this article after watching the episode earlier tonight. I've noticed that while the early part of the episode (especially the Teaser) is possibly more detailed than I'd like, the detail goes down such that the conceptually difficult acts four and five feel as if they are sketchily written and rushed to me. I'm aware that I've now duplicated some information in act 3 that was already mentioned in Act 4. I intend to come back to it tomorrow, when I'm not feeling too tired to tackle describing the levels of reality involved in Picard fooling Moriarty by adding his own extra level of holodeck simulations of reality in a better way that the existing "real real Riker" business without giving away what the viewer might not have guessed yet when it looks like Moriarty has got away in an Enterprise shuttle. I'll probably also got back and check exactly where the act3/4 break falls so I can fix that part too - but I'm too tired to get that all right now.

If I re-watch any significant portion of the episode, I'll also be sure to look out for a few more memorable quotes. AndroidFan 02:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Nitpick Edit

  • Professor Moriarty refers to Arthur Conan Doyle as an Englishman, when he is in fact a Scotsman.
Moved nitpick over ndash; Saphsaph 20:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hilarious moment Edit

Why is it that I always expect Data to start blowing bubbles out of his pipe in the start of the episode, instead of smoking it?

Would have been one hell of a hilarious moment if he did..--The Picard 20:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages aren't for this kind of personal commentary. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad Grammar Edit

The background section has the sentence: "It was a plan discredit some bad guy and Michael remembered it and said he loved the holodeck gag." This makes no gramatical sense to me... TheHYPO 07:30, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

I assume it's a quote from the source, in which case there's nothing that can be done. If it was copied wrong though someone can just look it up and fix. :) — Morder (talk) 07:42, November 10, 2009 (UTC)
Nah, it was just another Cleanse Tyop (TM). Thanks for pointing that out. ;-)– Cleanse 08:35, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

Probe class? Edit

Just watched this episode. Picard orders the launch of 4 Class-A probes. I'm not terribly hardcore, so I don't know if Class-4 and Class-A probes are equivalent. Just thought I'd note it in case someone else with better knowledge wanted to make the edit. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

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

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+