Talk:Initiations (Star Trek: Voyager)

Initiations (Star Trek: Voyager) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 11, 2014	Good article nominee	Listed

Star Trek Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Star TrekWikipedia:WikiProject Star TrekTemplate:WikiProject Star TrekStar Trek articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Culluh?

I'll watch this episode again to make sure, and then change the article if I'm right, but for now just thought I'd check. The article says Culluh encourages the Kazon children to kill Chakotay, but Culluh is Nistrim, and I thought these were the Ogla. Wouldn't it be Razik, the First Maje of the Ogla? Billy Shears (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: opposed and disowned by misattributed proposer P.T. Aufrette (talk) 00:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initiations (Star Trek: Voyager) → Initiations –

There is no article at Initiations, it simply redirects to Initiation. At Initiation (disambiguation), there are zero articles or potential articles with the title "Initiations", the Voyager episode is the only one. I would WP:HAT it though, either {{for}} or {{other uses}}. — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think most people would expect the plural to redirect to the singular in this case. In any case, I think fuller discussion is in order. older ≠ wiser 21:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose what currently links to initiations are Avadhuta, Sir John Woodroffe, Circle of Oak and Mistletoe, Sacred waters. Which illustrates why plurals usually default to generic words, though I don't know if/where this is advised in a policy or guideline page. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose not the primary usage of the term "initiations", which is primarily the plural of "initiation". -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 03:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

opposition to this discussion

I want it known that I did not start this discussion here, I did not move this discussion here, and I do not want it implied I did either thing. Despite appearances, I made no edits to this talk page and had no intention or interest in beginning a discussion here or on this topic. I vehemently object to Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs) moving my request here and making it appear as though I desired a discussion on the matter. If that user objected to my technical move request, then he or she was more than welcome to reject it there, not move it here and make it appear as though I wanted to make a spectacle or public inquisition on my request.

I made no edits to this page and redact Anthony Appleyard's impersonation or implication that I did so. If users who were misled or duped into participating in this discussion wish to continue doing so, they are of course welcome to with the understanding that I am not, and never was a part or instigator of it. — fourthords | =Λ= | 10:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if when AnthonyAppleyard moves speedy renames to full discussion that he indicates such. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Initiations (Star Trek: Voyager)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 10:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Would prefer " is the second episode of the second season, and eighteenth episode overall"
Any reason Chakotay isn't linked in the lead?
Similarly Kazon, the first time around at least?
"from the pilot" link suitably.
Who are Taylor and Piller? Perhaps say "from screenwriters Taylor ...."?
"(63–70%) " not sure what this means, nor is it mentioned anywhere else in the article.
"the infamous shooting location" why infamous? And again, "infamous" isn't noted anywhere else in the article beside the lead.
Do we put association affiliations after people's names in episode info boxes? Looks very odd.
Plot is unreferenced, and I believe that to be commonplace, all besides the star date, why is that picked out?
"Kazon-Ogla" should be "Kazon–Ogla".
"he's attacked" avoid contractions, so "he is attacked"
"Chakotay beams the young Kar aboard" followed by "Captured by a Kazon vessel, Chakotay..." pretty quick turn around of events here.
"that he is scheduled for execution" who is? It's unclear with the preceding text.
"to the planet's surface to rescue Chakotay. On the moon" planet or moon?
"didn't care " again, avoid contractions.
"it should've" should have.
In the lead "street gang" was linked, in the body, just "gang" of street gang is linked. Be consistent.
"he was simply given the part because of his " -> "he was given the part simply because of his"
"couldn't find" could not.
No need to link acting coach, particularly as we don't have an article (nor should we probably, more of a dictionary definition).
"would fondly recall " why not just "fondly recalled"
"crew who'd " who had.
"to goof around" is not encyclopaedic unless you're quoting it, in which case it needs to be in quote marks.
"would call", "would praise"... why not "called", "praised"?
"Robert Beltran (Chakotay) said " you've already introduced both him and his character name before, stick to surnames only.
"would call the" -> "called the".
Ref 9, no need for the SHOUTING.

A few issues to resolve, so I'll put it on hold for a week. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go line-by-line if you don't mind.

Is there any reason you'd prefer it that way? I used the current format on "Tuvix" and received no similar feedback. Just curious.

I happen to think the prose flows better without swiftly launching into parenthesised text. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The lede was written in piecemeal, so that's why Chakotay and Kazon weren't linked in the first paragraph.
linked "the pilot" to Caretaker (Star Trek: Voyager)
elaborated on the identities of Taylor and Pillar in the lede
63–70% is derived from the ratings in the reception section. 2.5/4 stars – 7/10 rating. I used the same tact on "Tuvix".

Close to synthesis, not really helpful given the very small sample of scores, I'd avoid this altogether. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I simply removed "infamous".
I don't know if there's an SOP for it or not. Again, I employed it at "Tuvix" and didn't receive any pushback on it.

I know if we're writing biographies we may list their honours, e.g. knighthoods, congressional medals of honour, etc, but this just means the individual is a member of a society, many of us could claim that, surely? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, the stardate wasn't discussed in the episode, but instead comes from that source. Being Star Trek, I like giving the stardate because it's so tied into the public mythos and image of the franchise.
Should it be? I know to use n-dashes with ranges of numbers, but every source I looked up only hyphenated it.

Maybe not, I'm overkeen. I looked at the Austria-Hungarian Empire and discovered a hyphen...! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

contractions expanded
It really was, in the episode. He beams over the young man, and then is almost immediately found and captured by the larger mothership. Without being superfluously wordy, I don't know what to change.

Maybe just a linking sentence, like "Almost immediately he is found and ...."? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

clarified with "the young Kazon"
Good catch, it's a moon.
didn't and should've expanded
linked [[gang|street gang]]
reworded
couldn't expanded
unlinked acting coach
just a verbose turn of phrase I lean on; I changed it
who'd expanded
No, it's not a quote, but I couldn't figure out a better way to phrase it. Do you have any suggestions?

What does the source say? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

made concise
Is that a once-per-article rule? I duplicate such parentheticals when I feel it's been a while and the reader may've forgotten.

It tends to be once per article, but yes, I've also seen people re-using links when it's been a while. Not a big deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

called
For accuracy, I always copy titles and such exactly. Should that be "Taylor, J. MSS" or "Taylor, J. Mss" and is there an SOP for that?

Exactly isn't strictly required, and capitals for shouting is one thing we can improve, in this case I'd say it's the latter. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy you took a look over this article for me, and please get back to me with any further corrections or questions! — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. I note a few of your answers relate to things not being picked up or not being mentioned in a previous GAN of yours. I'm afraid I tend to review things as a blank page (in my mind) so all comments come from there. If I can find SOPs for you, I'll let you know, otherwise in general most review comments come from my experiences at FAC and FLC. I'll respond to your comments in-line shortly. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Following up.

I copied and pasted your phrasing into the article.
I removed the parentage ranking from the lede.
I removed the association letters from the info box.
I tweaked the wording in the second paragraph of the plot.
The source actually says to "just goofing around the whole time."
I used the capitalization you suggested for the capitalized citation.

It turns out I reused a citation when I actually should have inserted a new one from the same source, so I made that adjustment, too. Do you have any other suggestions or concerns? — fourthords | =Λ= | 22:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Kar375x540.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]