Talk:Where No Man Has Gone Before

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Where No Man Has Gone Before article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Where No Man Has Gone Before was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 13, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
January 20, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
February 19, 2008	Good article reassessment	Kept
April 7, 2018	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Star Trek High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: Episode coverage Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

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.

Section on continuity

Is visible on the edit page, but not in the text? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.241.209.203 (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

Although it could certainly be rewritten, I think that the original version of this page which accurately described how this episode was formatted for viewing by the network executives vs. how it was formatted for television airing is certainly a "valuable" piece of Trek lore and should not have been edited out.

It really wasn't all that confusing. And no, I'm not the poster who posted it, so other than for the sake of enjoying interesting trivia, I have no dog in this fight. Sir Rhosis 21:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The primary reason was because there was far too much detail into a different episode in the lead of this article; not only was it potentially confusing in that a casual reader could think WNMHGB was the ep split into The Menagerie, but anything beyond the barest details required to establish this article fails relevancy standards anywhere but in that episode's own article. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we could get a source for this information it would be great: this is talking about the re-edit of this second pilot for the network/vs for broadcast - not the Cage/Menagerie thing. However, I would really like to see a source first, since most of what is here now is sourced. Morwen - Talk 22:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source: Allan Asherman, The Star Trek Compendium, 1981, pages 50-51 Sir Rhosis 05:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ace. I will see about putting this in the 'production' section. Morwen - Talk 09:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

Per the work being done by a number of editors on and off the Cleanup task force, please do not place "trivia" into articles; this makes them, yes, trivial. For those of you who work on other articles, please make sure they conform to this ideal as well. Write notable facts into prose, and please make sure there is a purpose for each fact within the article, not just "Actor A later became famous in Role B." Thanks. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status

So, um, how does this look to other folks now? it seems reaonably balanced in terms of plot/production/continuity notes. the obvious thing that is missing is a "critical reaction" section, which may be pretty impossible to source, unless someone has access to 1960s TV review columns. Maybe there are some fan polls we could source? Morwen - Talk 22:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and what do people think of the screenshot we have? I am pondering trying to get one with glowy-eyes Mitchell instead - would that be better? Morwen - Talk 22:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it needs a better cap. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Act I-II-III-IV

An early version of this pilot, which I saw aired once on CKCO Kitchener Ontario in the 1970s, blended the opening titles (cast, director, writer, etc.) into assorted scenes, and labeled each quarter hour of the program similar to how Quinn Martin did shows like "The Fugitive" and "The F.B.I.". GBC 18:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is the one we were discussing up the page where I gave the Asherman source. Sir Rhosis 20:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- The Asherman source should be in the post so I will add it once I've seen that with my own eyes (as is the Solow "Inside" book). Morwen - Talk 14:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I cut the very long sentence regarding why Number One was dropped. This sort of A-said B-said thing stalled the paragraph, especially with the long phrase regarding Solow's credentials. Just now says she was dropped. (and hey, wasn't it not the performance that supposedly was the problem so much as allegations of nepotism?) This material should really be at Number One (Star Trek) if it isn't there already. Morwen - Talk 14:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A videotape of the original pilot (with the acts, differing opening credit sequence, etc.) was widely available for sale with a 1989 copyright notice on the outside box, from Video Rarities. Should this be noted within the article itself? Drgitlow (talk) 05:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know--I'm sure it was an unlicensed, illegal copy. . . Sir Rhosis (talk) 08:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where No Man Has Gone Before is listed only as production no. 2 and broadcast episode no. 3, but not as an unaired/unreleased pilot, which is in fact as different a version as The Cage is from the Menagerie. This version included a different introduction, different Main and End Titles and music, different Act-Ons and additional footage. Altogether about half the amount of deleted material from The Cage pilot. It would seem this also counts as a different episode than the broadcast version. The fact that it was never broadcast or released on video in its original form does not negate the fact that it officially exists or did exist. Further, it is likely to be restored and released at some point in the future.--76.233.87.107 (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

repeat date

i've realised the repeat date is here. some random AOL ip address added this a year ago, I considered leaving a note but this seems unlikely to reach the desired person. i couldn't find a source for this in my books, I shall try again, but any suggestions as to how I could find a source for this without having actual TV guide back-issues would be welcome. Morwen - Talk 17:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the name "Scotty"

what that bit means is that the name was established in the episode, but that it hadn't been decided at script/pre-casting phase. Morwen - Talk 15:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay (I haven't seen the ep in several years). The phrasing suggested that it wasn't yet chosen. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it could be clearer. Morwen - Talk 17:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article

I've passed this article as a GA, since as far as I can tell, it looks like it fulfills all the criteria. Its more or less well-written, (I couldn't find anything worth commenting on in terms of bad writing) neutral which is nice for these sorts of articles, (You'd be surprised how many look like they've been written by television critics or something.) I think its fairly well-referenced, the one image has a fair use rationale, and really, everything looks all right to me. For a little improvement though, it looks like a few lines could still be cited yet in the production section, but not knowing the exact content of the references I can't be sure. To really get it up to as good as it can get, finding and listing the page numbers of each reference would probably be pretty nice. Homestarmy 19:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think at one point some ref tags which were the same on the paragraph after the one which had them first were removed by someone on grounds of redundancy. I can certainly find page numbers : (although then we have the problem that cite book really can't do "ibid page x" type things) Morwen - Talk 02:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps (Pass)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, MASEM 03:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing Doohan and Takei

I take it the article means that they were introduced as their characters Scotty and Sulu respectively, the previous wording was a little vague. Alastairward (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little unclear why it claims Sulu's first appearance, given that "The Man Trap" aired before it. Shouldn't the actual episode sequence should take precedence over the production schedule and in-universe timeline? Ibadibam (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified the sentence to say first produced episode. Happy to discuss if that doesn't address your concerns. DonIago (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A question.

Re: "Dehner's powers grow at a slower rate than Mitchell's, but she eventually develops the silver glow as well, and later develops powers that are almost as powerful as Mitchell's."

Dehner's powers don't appear to grow at all until Mitchell gives her the silver eyes near the end of the episode. It's a minor point, but isn't this more accurate? Genesis 1:3 (talk) 10:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First stardate

Just a note that the article currently says "The episode contains the first stardate (1313.8)". However, Kirk's headstone shows his birth and death dates as 1277.1 and 1313.7 respectively, in scenes prior to Kirk recording his Captain's log. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well, the 'headstone', conjured from mitchell's fevered imagination, also says 'james h kirk'; I think it has to go down as 'incorrectly regarded as goof', to use imdb's phrase.

duncanrmi (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

There are factual inaccuracies in the plot. Spock does not "hint" that Kirk should kill Mitchell "SPOCK: Then you have one other choice. Kill Mitchell while you still can." Does that seem like a subtle hint? The idea that Hot lips attacks to Mitchell "to weaken him" is silly, she tried to kick his ass and only weakened him. Her goal was not "to" weaken him even if that was the effect. Lastly, "but before he can recharge, Kirk creates a rock slide, killing Mitchell." Mitchell had recharged, ( I seem to recall that it happened just when Kirk was about to smash mitchells head in with a rock. Mitchell knocks him around a bit and then Kirk kills him via rock slide. This is all minor, but the page is inaccurate. 75.177.36.154 (talk) 04:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't even clear that Mitchell is dead -- he could be hurt, injured, or merely temporarily trapped by the rock slide. We cannot tell. IMHO it is more likely that they carried out their original intention and either blew up the station or indeed used deadly radiation on the planet shortly thereafter. To assume that he was dead -- when he could easily revive himself -- would be illogical and dangerous. It was also perhaps a missed opportunity for a sequel to the episode later in the show. Chesspride 172.164.40.65 (talk) 12:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Issues affecting GA status?

The article is promoted a "Good Article", yet two sections are tagged as insufficiently sourced. What to do with the tags? --George Ho (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the issue is what to do with the insufficiently sourced material (source or remove it), not what to do with the tags, which seem appropriate. DonIago (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Morwen, Cyberia23, and RadioKirk: Some cleanup and referencing definately needed here. Will look at opening a reassessment soon, but will give a chance to fix issues first. AIRcorn (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Where No Man Has Gone Before. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Where No Man Has Gone Before. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713004435/http://uk.bluray.ign.com/articles/105/1052677p1.html to http://uk.bluray.ign.com/articles/105/1052677p1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Where No Man Has Gone Before/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article needs a lot more citations and the reception section is too short. It needs a good copy edit as well. If these issues are sorted I will give it a more in-depth review. AIRcorn (talk) 07:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted per above. AIRcorn (talk) 03:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should Have been...

Should have been the Pilot epsiode shown in synidcation instead of Number three.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.142.38 (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Similar Premise In The Nth Degree (Star Trek: The Next Generation)a timid Star Trek officer Reginald Barclay becomes a super genius with an IQ of 2,200 as a result of an encounter with an alien probe. Unlike Gary Mitchell, Barclay retains his humanity and actually helps the crew of the Enterprize contact an alien species.

Incorrect linking

Not a regular Wikipedian but I did notice that this article refers to sclera lenses in the Production section, but the link goes to an article for scleral lenses, which are different. The article for scleral lenses does say scleral lenses are not to be confused with sclera lenses and specifically references the usage of sclera lenses in Where No Man Has Gone Before. This is somewhat misleading but does lead to correct information eventually. Should this link be removed? or perhaps changed to direct to the link for "Contact lens", which has appropriate subsections?