Jump to content

Talk:Unification (Star Trek: The Next Generation)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Is there any way to get those section edit links to stop appearing in the text at the background section? Tetigit 04:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it at the template. Cburnett 05:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So... any idea why the production numbers are reversed? It's like that on the DVD, so it's not a typo on our end. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because of scheduling issues with Leonard Nemoy, they had to film the second half before the first, so the production numbers are reversed.

Requested move 6 September 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed 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: not moved. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Unification (Star Trek: The Next Generation)Unification (Star Trek) – While "Star Trek" is a necessary disambiguater, the "The Next Generation" part isn't - so we should remove it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:54, 6 September 2016 (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.

Unification is now a three-part Star Trek episode

[edit]

Since the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "Unification" continues on Star Trek: Discovery, I think it should now be considered a three-part episode in the Star Trek franchise. TVBuff90 (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was wildly inappropriate to insert Star Trek Discovery into this episode article as "Part III". It is a separate episode from almost 3 decades later and should be treated as such. At most it merits only a brief mention, and the continuity note in the Background section seems acceptable. -- 109.78.196.125 (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]