Talk:The Gamesters of Triskelion

Link to Thrall

iridescent: I restored the link to Thrall. In choosing words to be used by people on other planets, the writers of Star Trek sometimes use English words that are not necessarily well known, and which may refer or allude to other cultures from Earth or human history on Earth. Since the word Thrall is an legitimate English word, but not one that is necessarily well known, and there is a Wikipedia article titled Thrall, it seems suitable that one of the occurrences in this article is linked. (By the way, it is the root of the better known enthrall.) 206.53.197.12 (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I see I made a lengthy argument over such a small change. 206.53.197.12 (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Notable?

The article's been tagged for several years due to concerns about notability. I'm not seeing that any effort has been made to address this, nor do I see how simply being an episode of Star Trek inherently makes this a notable subject. If there's a previous consensus to that effect I'd welcome a link. Otherwise the article should either be redirected appropriately, deleted, or improved to address this concern. Merely deleting the tag is inappropriate. DonIago (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Doniago, it is perfectly true that simply being an episode of Star Trek does not make "The Gamesters of Triskelion" inherently notable. Rather, what is likely to make it notable is the existence of independent discussion of the episode (independent, that is, of the show's producers). If you bother to investigate the subject, I believe you will find that there has been a vast amount of commentary on Star Trek episodes, in any of various specialized guides to Star Trek and in works of reference on science fiction generally. There is little question that there is enough to make this episode notable. I am not saying that because I happen to be a Star Trek fan; I am saying it because I think it is true. If you have any real doubts about the episode's notability, then nominate the article for deletion. I am confident what the outcome would be. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

When the article has been improved to demonstrate this I'll fully support the removal of the Notability tag. Until such time, it is inappropriate to remove the tag. If you have an issue with the article being tagged, you're welcome to consider whatever form of dispute resolution you deem appropriate, but simply telling people not to replace a tag is not something you have the authority to decree. Maintenance templates should not be removed without resolving the problem the tag refers to, especially when you don't even have a consensus favoring the removal. To be sure, I don't doubt that there's been discussion of the episode in Star Trek-related media, but I have concerns as to whether it's received much notice in independent publications. DonIago (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I have again removed the tag because it is indeed frivolous. It is obvious that all episodes of Star Trek are notable, even if citations of a given episode have (surprisingly) not yet made their way into the article. So clear is this that if the tag is replaced again, I will raise the issue on the administrators' noticeboard. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to do so then. DonIago (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Doniago, you comment that, "I don't doubt that there's been discussion of the episode in Star Trek-related media, but I have concerns as to whether it's received much notice in 'independent' publications." I am afraid that shows a failure to understand the issue. Independent means, as I said, independent of the actual producers and creators of "The Gamesters of Triskelion" and the other episodes of the original series of Star Trek. It does not mean independent of guides to and books about Star Trek that are not the work of the people who actually produced the episode. Those would be perfectly acceptable sources. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe that coverage of the episode in a publication intended to discuss Star Trek is sufficient to establish notability of the episode. Would you argue that a book about Lord of the Rings that discusses a single minor elf character at some point within the book makes that character notable?

Even if I did believe that, the point would remain that no sources have been provided for the article to satisfy the notability concerns. Surely the fastest way to address the concern would be to provide at least one source.

Lastly, as having the article tagged does no harm to the article, and in fact may encourage other editors to improve the article, something that apparently no one thus far has been able to do, I have to ask how it makes any sense to remove the tag even if it may technically not be appropriate. DonIago (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a rhetorical response that distracts away from the issue. If a book about Lord of the Rings spent a significant amount of space discussing an elf character, then yes, that would help to show that the character is notable. It wouldn't make a difference whether it is a character you consider "minor" or not; that's irrelevant personal opinion. So you are incorrect in your interpretation of WP:NOTE. Even if you were correct, that wouldn't mean that you would be in a strong position to edit war to restore the tag against multiple other editors. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

If you're asserting that a book about Star Trek has spent a significant amount of space discussing this episode, then I'd like to know which book and what the content was. If you're not in a position to address that, then how can you be sure it ever happened? And just because more editors feel the tag isn't appropriate doesn't make them correct either. Majority is not the same thing as consensus, and if you're accusing me of edit-warring? You're as guilty of it as I am. DonIago (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe you will find that The Star Trek Compendium by Allan Asherman gives a detailed discussion of each individual episode of the original series of Star Trek. You may find it mentioned on Amazon.com here. It is hardly the only source that could be mentioned. Try searching for Star Trek guides on Amazon.com and you will find what may seem an unreasonably large number of them, going into more detail on Star Trek than any but the most dedicated fan could want. Discussions of "The Gamesters of Triskelion" can definitely be found by anyone prepared to make a good faith search for them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

There's atleast 5 external links for this article. What more do you want, Doniago? GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Would we reasonably expect any of those sources not to at least name-check this episode? If not, then I don't see how they establish that the episode is particularly notable. Though honestly, if there was even one piece of cited information provided in the article I probably wouldn't have had enough of an issue with it being de-tagged to raise a concern. DonIago (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I have brought this matter to ANI here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact that a source is about Star Trek and could be expected to discuss this episode definitely does not make it unacceptable as a source. Based on his comments on ANI, Doniago seems to think that only sources that could not reasonably be expected to discuss the episode are acceptable, I don't believe that has any basis in WP:NOTE. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

If I ever suggested that I thought sources that discuss Star Trek are unreliable with regards to any coverage of this episode, that was not my intention. My concern is whether they demonstrate the significance of this particular episode, and I am not the only editor at the ANI discussion who has expressed that concern.

Let me clarify further: if the Star Trek Compendium simply lists the episode along with basic information, that does not, IMO, establish significance, as I think it would be unrealistic to expect such a book not to discuss the episode. If the Compendium discusses information that makes the episode significant in a context outside of "this is a book about Star Trek discussing an episode of Star Trek", then it would certainly help this article and moot my concerns for that information to be added with an appropriate citation. DonIago (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Additional material and sourcing

I've added some new material and sources with these edits. I trust this means the notability tag won't be re-added. It should be relatively simple to source the plot summary to reliable sources and that will enable the 'additional citations' tag to be removed as well. Carcharoth (talk) 09:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

This looks good Carcharoth, and as far as I'm concerned satisfies notability concerns. That said, it's my understanding that plot summaries generally don't need sources (in the case of plot, the material itself is acceptable as the source). The additional citations tag is currently not on the article, and given the massive improvement I support that removal as well. Thanks for all of your work on this! DonIago (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

it should be added that the sequence where Spock and Kirk battle is parodied in the Cable Guy, in one scene. Hammertime4603 (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure; do you have a secondary source that's discussed it in any detail? DonIago (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)