• Kirk tells Uhura not to make a report to Starfleet until they are out of Trelane's range, which he speculates would be the point at which they entered the solar system. Yet it had already been clearly established that Gothos was not part of a solar system, being in the midst of the "star desert."
  • To make Gothos block the Enterprise's way, the effects department just overlaid the planet over the starry background. As a result, stars can be seen through the planet.
  • In one syndicated version, the scene in which Trelane shoots a phaser at the creatures on display is cut out.
  • The pistols in this episode are not copies of those used in the Hamilton-Burr duel.

Removed from page, deemed inappropriate per conversation on Memory Alpha:Ten Forward. --Alan del Beccio 05:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Trelane's knowledge of Earth events isn't as complete as he claims; for example-the pistols he forces Kirk to use are not like those in the Alexander Hamilton duel.
  • During the prologue the bridge crew is drinking beverages from paper cups. After the opening credits, set four hours later, they are all gone. However for one close-up of Uhura at the beginning of act two her cup is back on her console. In the following wide-shot it has disappeared again. The close-up was clearly an unused shot from the opening sequence.
Removed. — Morder (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Name of the research firmEdit

I think the name of the firm that did the research for "Trek" was actually named "Kellam-Deforest." I recall reading that this firm's name was often mixed up with the name of actor Deforest Kelley. Could somebody doublecheck? Sir Rhosis 01:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

For some reason, I thought that Kellam de Forest was a person's name, i've never seen it with a hyphen.. whether i'm wrong or not, and whichever is the proper hyphenation, yes, this is the name i've heard. -- Captain M.K.B. 02:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I had thought so too, but "Kellam de Forest" is a person; "de Forest Research, Inc." is the firm. See IMDb, for example. The reason we all know it as Kellam is that is the way the memos in The Making of Star Trek read. It may have been a one man shop, but the firm's name isn't the same as his. My spelling was a little off based on my source material, but I'll change it to match the right spelling. Aholland 02:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Kellam Deforest (whose name was strangely close to Deforest Kelley) WAS a one-man shop. He was an astounding individual with a near-photographic memory. Although he had research tools to look up names, places, etc., most of his research was done strictly out of his incredible brain. He worked as a reseacher for motion picture producers, novelists and news organizations through the 1950s, 50s and 70s. He was used mostly to see if ficticious names producers/writers were considering had ever been used before in literature, ect. SDCCC 21:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Kellam deForest was NOT a one man operation. In fact, Mr. DeForest did not write a single research report for Star Trek. Virtually all of the Star Trek reports - from TOS through the first episodes of Enterprise were written by Joan Pearce. The others were written by Peter Sloman. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Hello Folks...

A few notes of clarification:

Kellam de Forest is not a was. He is alive and kicking, and as remarkable as ever. He is a fine writer, and heavily involved in community, landscape and historic preservation, fields in which he has made impressive contributions.

In addition, Mr. de Forest has never taken credit for work he did not do. He is, in fact, a one man operation, and a remarkable one at that. Please contact him if you wish to clarify his contributions to any project.

Gregory Hubbard

Further (and, it is to be hoped, final) clarification:

"deForest Research" was the firm founded by Kellam de Forest, and which did the original research on "Star Trek". Research on the pilots and first three episodes was done at dFR by Rona Kornblum, most likely with some input from Kellam de Forest. Beginning with "Balance of Terror", the reports were written by Peter Sloman. When Sloman went off to college, the late Joan Pearce took over, and thereafter Pearce and Sloman (when he was at dFR) collaborated on the reports, most of them written by Pearce. This collaboration continued long after Pearce and Sloman left dFR; later research (on "ST: TNG", "ST: DS9" "ST: V", "ST: E" as well as the later films) was done by them, or by Pearce alone, at Joan Pearce Research Associates. 20:14, January 4, 2012 (UTC) Peter Sloman

Background notes Edit

Cleanup treatment:

  • Kirk and Spock make a common error at the end of this episode: there is no such word as "mischievious" - it is "mischievous." Perhaps in the 23rd century, however, this has changed.

Removed, unless someone can explain how they can hear the difference, because I certainly can't figure it out. If it is based on the scripts, that's one thing, but that should be the note, rather than about Kirk and Spock. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Chronologial PlacementEdit

Can I ask why this episode is place in 2266, I noticed that several episodes are place in different years, such as "Journey to Babel" and "The Trouble with Tribbles" being placed in 2268. I just wondered why?--The Doctor 10:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this episode is set in 2267. That was an error on my part, and I have corrected it. As for "The Trouble with Tribbles", the events of that episode were stated to take place 105 years prior to the events of "Trials and Tribble-ations", set in 2373. 2373 - 105 = 2268. Because "Trials and Tribble-ations" was several episodes into 2373, "Journey to Babel" was also moved to 2268 to allow for more time. --From Andoria with Love 11:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, makes sense now. Thanks for the reply. :-).--The Doctor 11:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

There is at least one first season episode in which Kirk makes a log entry "Stardate: 15 something." I get the feeling that the writers were wandering around a bit during the first season... Any indication that the Squire grew up to be Q? -- Craig Goodrich 22:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
No. However, Read the novel Q-Squared by Peter David. Great novel. — Morder 23:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

moved from Talk:DiscoveryEdit


This has long been a popular misconception about Kirk's/the Writer's questionable grammar. To quote:

  • SPOCK: Inconceivable this body has gone unnoted on our records.
  • KIRK: And yet, here it is. No time to investigate. Science stations, gather data for computer banks. Uhura, notify the discovery on subspace radio.
  • UHURA: A strong interference on subspace, Captain. The planet must be a natural radio source.
  • KIRK: Let's get out of its range.

What it all basically boils down to is how grammatically weak the line in and who is interpreting it.

Alternatively, "Uhura, notify the discovery on subspace radio," could mean:

  • "Uhura, notify [Starfleet of] the discovery on subspace radio."
  • "Uhura, notify the discovery [to Starfleet] on subspace radio."
  • "Uhura, broadcast the findings on subspace radio."
  • "Uhura, notify the [starship/USS] Discovery on subspace radio."

The confusion of this subject roots back to closed captioning/subtitles (from at least) which treated it as a proper noun ("Discovery"). Sources for this include the closed captioning from the original 2-disc DVD release of TOS (found here), and I also recall seeing it on some TV broadcasts, such as the Sci-Fi channel. Based on the most current DVD box set it is no longer a proper noun.

Meanwhile, the article assumes the line means that "the Discovery" means that it was a starship, which makes the sentence (in the article) "and notify her of the existence of" even more misleading about what was really said in the episode. --Alan del Beccio 17:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering "What is the Discovery and why is Enterprise trying to contact it as opposed to some other vessel? What's so special about Discovery?" I think you're right, though, Kirk is asking Uhura to notify Starfleet about their discovery, not contact the Discovery. --From Andoria with Love 17:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
If the new captions say 'discovery' without a capital D then yes, this should be deleted. The line as broadcast suggested to me that 'D/discovery' was to receive the notification, since the idea of 'notifying a discovery' sounded grammatically ludicrous.
Was this at any point clarified in behind-the-scenes materials?--Bounty 20:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
This is now being discussed on the deletion page linked on the flip side of this article. --Alan del Beccio 20:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this might all be more ado about something than is necessary. A check of the October 26, 1966 Final Draft shooting script for "The Squire of Gothos" indicates that Kirk's scripted line is "Uhura, report the discovery on sub-space radio ---" It would appear that Shatner simply mis-delivered the scripted line as "notify" instead of "report" and the script supervisor didn't notice the (ungrammatical) slip up. GSchnitzer 01:39, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

Background Cleanup Edit

I did some cleanup of the article and removed some information. Info in ( ) below was not removed. I removed the following for being nitpicks:

  • (Leslie (Eddie Paskey) is in the captain's chair when the crew first escapes Trelane.) Curiously enough, he is the transporter officer five seconds before.

I removed the following for being commentary:

  • Trelane's parents do not seem to be aliens with the typical superiority complex so often seen from superbeings. Although they refer to Trelane's specimens as "pets", they also tell Trelane that, in fact, Humans are superior to them because they have spirit and that when he grows up, he will understand this.
  • Trelane also throws in references to much older historical events, such as Hannibal's invaders, indicating that, although he is a child, he has already lived a very long life and has been watching our "lively little Earth" for many centuries.

I removed the following because it is more appropriate to the Trelane page - where it is already:

  • Fans have long speculated about a link between Trelane and Q, and author Peter David even wrote a novel, Q-Squared predicated on this notion. No canon evidence exists to support this theory, but while many fans support the link others point out that Trelane, unlike Q, appears to need machinery to support his abilities.

I removed the following because I'm not sure exactly what it means.

  • (The exact century in which Star Trek was set had not been determined during the filming of this episode...) Nonetheless, taking into account that the images Trelane would see of Earth, traveling through space, would take centuries to reach many solar systems, even at light speed. Another element is the idea that, although Trelane could observe the Earth through his viewing scope, he could not know how substances tasted, felt or smelled, resulting in fire without heat and food and drink without flavor.

I think the majority of the Judge Parker note could be moved to its own page; there is a Douglas MacArthur page, which is a similar situation. I also added a few incites. – Cleanse 09:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The following is plausible, but has been uncited for a while now:

  • Production designer Matt Jefferies says Trelane's castle was one of the projects of which he is most proud out of all his work in Star Trek.

Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 02:13, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • The final hunt between Trelane and Kirk has similarities to Richard Connell's classic tale, The Most Dangerous Game.
  • Trelane's threat that Kirk will "hang by the neck until dead, dead, dead" is a quote attributed to 19th century Judge Isaac C. Parker, though historians say Parker never actually uttered this while imposing death sentences. [1] [2]
I removed the above two notes as lacking citations as deliberate similarities/references. They can be restored if a citation is found.--31dot 04:11, January 28, 2012 (UTC)
When I went to saved my work, my ipad did something wierd and saved while I was writing the edit summary. The summary should read removed nitpicks and reorg not are

Removed as nitpicks

  • The exact century in which Star Trek was set had not been determined during the filming of this episode. Kirk refers to people and events of the 18th and 19th century as being nine hundred years in the past, which could have placed the series in the 27th century or later.
  • Uhura refers to a "Spacefleet Command", even though the names Starfleet and Starfleet Command originated several episodes earlier in "Court Martial", and again in the two-part episode "The Menagerie, Part I" and "The Menagerie, Part II".
  • The plot of this episode shares many similarities with "Charlie X" in that they both feature a person of limited maturity with psychic powers who abuses them and in the end is taken away by other powerful psychic beings.

Removed because its why they remastered the episodes.

  • In the remastered version of this episode, the appearance of Gothos was significantly improved over the original version.


  • A continuity error occurs when the landing party exits the transporter room and we see Leslie taking over transporter controls, yet in the next shot he is sitting in the captain's chair as they enter the bridge.
  • Spock and Kirk clearly call the meteorologist Mr. "Yay-gur", but both McCoy and DeSalle say "Jay-gur". Based on the German spelling "Jäger" (a common German surname which means "Hunter"), the correct pronunciation would be "Yay-gur".

--Chalet (talk) 13:45, April 10, 2017 (UTC)

Takes place in the 28th century!Edit

MCCOY: Void, star desert. The word conjures up pictures of dunes, oases, mirages. KIRK: Sunlight, palm trees. We're nine hundred light years from that kind of desert, Bones.


JAEGER: Notice the period, Captain. Nine hundred light years from Earth. It's what might be seen through a viewing scope if it were powerful enough.

TRELANE: Ah, yes. I've been looking in on the doings on your lively little Earth.

KIRK: Then you've been looking in on the doings nine hundred years past.


TRELANE: A matched set. Just like the pair that slew your heroic Alexander Hamilton. And Captain, I never miss.


Alexander Hamilton died July 12, 1804 and if Trelane is viewing "the doings nine hundred years past" then this puts Star Trek in the 28th century! The Star Trek compendium as well as The Nitpicker's Guide for Classic Trekkers point out this.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:13, July 11, 2017 (UTC)

What's your point? MA talk pages are not talk forums. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 18:16, July 11, 2017 (UTC)
The passage does not refer to the year, but to the amount of time light took to reach that system from the Sol system. 31dot (talk) 19:00, July 11, 2017 (UTC)

Right and 1804 + 900 = 2704 or 28th century. Which was my point. Besides some pages have "Continuity" sections and an episode that based on the information provided puts Star Trek in the 28th century is relevant.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:26, July 11, 2017 (UTC)

The two mentions you are putting together are separate. They do not establish that Star Trek is in the 28th century, which would be at odds with the rest of canon. 31dot (talk) 21:35, July 11, 2017 (UTC)

As I said before The Star Trek compendium as well as The Nitpicker's Guide for Classic Trekkers both note that based on what the episode says Star Trek would be in the 28th century. In fact Star Trek in terms of when things happen is somewhat of a continuity mess as WWIII (Eugenics Wars)moved from the 1990s to the 2050s to the 2150s.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:53, July 11, 2017 (UTC)

Please keep your indent consistent. It isn't that much of a mess. Leaving that aside, the dating of this episode is well settled. If you would like to suggest an apocrypha section entry with the book entries you speak of, please suggest one. 31dot (talk) 01:19, July 12, 2017 (UTC)

De Forest Research, Inc., the company who reviewed scripts for clearances and other related matters, noted in their commentary on the line "Then you've been looking in on doings nine hundred years past": "Other scripts have placed it c. 200 years in the future, e.g. Star Trek: Shore Leave (1966). That places this reference in the 13th century." Last time I checked Alexander Hamilton didn't live in the 1200s. So, no matter how you try to hand wave it the episode has continuity issues. Even Leonard Nimoy commented on the continuity problem presented by The Squire of Gothos (episode).--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:31, July 28, 2017 (UTC)

I have added a continuity section regarding this as there are references to it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:16, February 12, 2019 (UTC)

Don't use the </ref> citations. --Alan (talk) 18:21, February 12, 2019 (UTC)


I've removed the following:

  • Richard Carlyle, who played Carl Jaeger, was 52 years old at the time of filming. He appears to have been the oldest actor to have played a regular Enterprise crew member in the original series.

John Hoyt was 59 when he played an Enterprise crewmember in "The Cage", and Paul Fix was 64 when he played one in "Where No Man Has Gone Before". Laura Wood was 65 when she appeared in "Charlie X", although that might not count, since she played the older version of a young crewmember.--Lt. Arex (talk) 14:52, January 20, 2019 (CET)

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