Jump to content

Talk:Cost of Living (Star Trek: The Next Generation)

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

Worf

[edit]

At 20:04, 15 Dec 2003, Timwi removed one of my references about Worf (an article that I actually used to research the topic), and made it an external link. I think this was an incorrect move.

First of all, please register for a user name, log in, and sign your messages. Secondly, please leave personal messages on the user's talk page (e.g. User talk:Timwi), not the User page. Thirdly, I have no idea what you're talking about. I actually removed an external link and made it into an internal link (Worf). Please try to understand the system before you make false claims. Thank you. -- Timwi 04:01, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I think what he/she was trying to say is, he/she used the "Worf" article to find out information for writing the "Cost of Living" article, and so it should be one of the references, as he/she originally wrote it. (Maybe he/she meant a "see also" link when he/she wrote an "external" link in the above comment.)
—Vespristiano 05:46, 2003 Dec 22 (UTC)

Wedding

[edit]

Someone should add some content related to Lwaxana's wedding.

I've written a new, better summary of the episode, but of course additional information would be useful. Zeck 09:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Episode

[edit]

I think the person who wrote the holodeck part of this episode was on something :P

Yeah. Dudtz 8/11/06 4:23 PM EST

It's different but I reckon one of the writers had seen Cirque du Soleil or something. Would be interesting to get more Production details and a proper explanation about where it all came from. -- 109.79.172.210 (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nitrium

[edit]

There is a proposal to redirect Nitrium to this article (see Nitrium talk page). As a test, I've added some nitrium information to this article. If it seems too big or detailed, then consider a separate nitrium article. I am not saying this as an argument but as a possibility in case people think it's too much text for the episode article. If the nitrium article stays, then I will probably advocate deletion of this large block of text.VK35 19:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since Nitrium is being considered for deletion (AfD), I have attached a shortened version of the nitrium article to see if it fits. This is done as an experimental edit to see if it can be edit to fit the episode article. It should not be thought of as fighting, content dispute, etc.VK35 19:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goofs

[edit]

Do we need the goof? Lots42 (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:ST-TNG Cost of Living.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]

An image used in this article, File:ST-TNG Cost of Living.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 16 June 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:ST-TNG Cost of Living.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 April 2021

[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 19:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Cost Of Living → Cost of Living (Star Trek: The Next Generation) – MOS:AT — Fourthords | =Λ= | 11:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Episode is now at the wrong title

[edit]

Per the episode titlecard, the episode name is "Cost Of Living" (capital "Of"). —Locke Cole • t • c 19:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The namimg convention regardling capitalization (at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Titles of works) says,

In general, each word in English titles of books, films, and other works takes an initial capital, except for articles ("a", "an", "the"), the word "to" as part of an infinitive, and prepositions and coordinating conjunctions shorter than five letters (e.g., "on", "from", "and", "with"), unless they begin or end a title or subtitle. Examples: A New Kind of Science, Ghost in the Shell, To Be or Not to Be, The World We Live In.

— Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Locke Cole, you've behavior here is extremely disruptive. You've been reverted by myself and 109.76.200.55 and yet you still revert without starting a discussion. You've opposed the move in April and you posted a comment 5 days later which @Fourthords explained why it is named the way it is. Your insistence on your style is trying to game the system after you failed at the RM. To be clear, I'm not reverting you now again as I know you'll revert a 4th time and find yourself blocked. Please understand that what you are doing is incorrect and correct the target. As an aside I'll say, that I too wish that works would be titled exactly how their author wanted, but that isn't what the MoS says. Gonnym (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Of" should be lowercase so "Cost of Living" is correct per our naming conventions on Wikipedia. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MoS conventions ("guidelines") do not override site-wide policy ("verifiability"). We do not get to make things different because we like them a different way than what our sources say, that's called "original research". Another policy, in case we're keeping count, that's two core policies being violated so someone doesn't have to be blinded by an uppercase "Of". —Locke Cole • t • c 18:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: MOS cannot override WP:V. Regardless, the article is living at the "correct" (per MoS) title, noting the actual title in the article (which even some secondary sources appear to pick up on, despite Wikipedia getting it wrong for over a decade and likely contributing to the incorrect title propagating in the wild). I won't revert a 4th time, but as I live and breathe I also won't stand idly by while people try to tell me the sky is red when it's very clearly blue (see circular reporting / citogensis). —Locke Cole • t • c 18:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(capitalization)#Titles_of_works and MOS:CT are very clear in this instance: prepositions, such as "of" are never capitalized on Wikipedia, and this isn't a Star Trek Into Darkness situation. A medium can choose how they wish to display their title/use their own capitalization methodology, but for our purposes on Wikipedia, "Cost of Living" is how it should be presented. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should use "Cost of Living" for the title. Some shows list the episode title in all caps – would we capitalize the title then? Of course not; it's for style and shouldn't dictate our writing standards. Also, the Star Trek website uses "Cost of Living" in its database article for the episode. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you engaging in OR and assuming it's a stylistic choice? And why would our stylistic choice override what the source material says? —Locke Cole • t • c 20:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we engage in OR and assume "Of" is deliberately capitalized instead of a typo? The other sources listed here seem to agree that the title uses "of", not "Of", and Wikipedia should reflect the consensus of published works. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are multiple episodes where they did this? You're still doing the OR thing by assuming it was a typo. Do you have a source that has the studio or the titlist admitting they mistakenly capitalized words that shouldn't have been? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We are not beholden to follow the primary source blindly. When there is a dispute between the primary document and secondary sources, Wikipedia should use the consensus from the secondary sources, and the secondary sources agree that the title uses "of". Basing our information solely on the primary document is a bad standard to set. (Think about it this way: If a book opened by saying "This is 100% factual" and then proceeded to argue that the Earth is flat, we wouldn't have to say the book is accurate based on its own statement. I know that's a bit of an extreme example, but it shows why secondary sources are preferable over primary sources.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure glad you weren't around when discussions were held on how to treat transgender people. With your faulty logic we'd still be deadnaming people. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But most reliable secondary sources don't deadname people, so I would argue my point still stands. Older sources would use deadnames, but that's because they were written based on what was known as the time, and the newer, correct name would override that. It's not really comparable to an episode title that has never changed. However, at this point, I recognize that any example or source I try to offer is probably not going to convince you, so I won't get bogged down in the "of" vs. "Of" debate any further. I would simply suggest that you note how many other people support "of" and remember that Wikipedia works to establish consensus, which means not everyone may get their desired outcome if consensus moves towards another option. (There have been plenty of decisions on Wikipedia that I don't agree with, but I accept them anyway; it's the only way this community runs smoothly.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MoS does not override our need to use verifiable information. A group of editors deciding that in this instance we can toss verifiability out the window doesn't mean we just tag WP:V with {{historical}}. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The words making up the title is verifiable, basically what would be spoken when saying the title, and that is all WP:V cares about. How it is stylized when written is a manual of style consideration for each publication that reports it to make. The Wikipedia manual of style is clear on how to capitalize titles of works. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't invoke WP:V without clearly showing your sources, you know irrefutably verifying them not just stating them. For anyone else who would appreciate an easy way to check, Memory Alpha includes an image of the episode title card, and capital-O "Cost Of Living" was used onscreen, but even the nerds at Memory Alpha title their episode article as "Cost of Living". (Direct link to title card image.) It is a very good thing to verify that the content is correct "Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up" but content (information) and style (presentation) are two separate things. The style guide says to write "of" and no one else seems to have any enthusiasm for going against the style guide on this. Even if I agreed with you, it would not be a good idea to make this change for only one or two episodes, there would need to be a consistent approach to the whole List_of_Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation_episodes. -- 109.76.144.221 (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the "of" vs. "Of" is a stylistic decision that Wikipedia should be deciding for themselves when we have clear evidence that one or the other was used. Were this a subject where the episode and all copies were destroyed and we only had 2nd hand knowledge to work from, I would agree with using whatever style fits (unless reliable secondary sources could show that one or the other was used). I've no idea why anyone views having accurate titles as a "bad thing" beyond their precious eyeballs seeing an uppercase "Of". —Locke Cole • t • c 05:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Locke Cole Can you quote exactly which part of WP:V correlates to having to use identical grammar? I'm only looking for a verbatim quote, nothing else. -- /Alex/21 01:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex 21: This page in a nutshell: Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. The current title is "made up". —Locke Cole • t • c 05:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No the current title is well sourced, how it is capitalized conforms to how titles are presented in this publication. The capitalization variations don't change the title. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Locke Cole That quote does not refer to grammar at all. Can you quote exactly which part of WP:V correlates to having to use identical grammar, specifically mentioning grammar? -- /Alex/21 12:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex 21: Oh, I see, you're confused. Let me unconfuse you: can you quote the part of WP:V that makes an exception for episode titles to be incorrect just because you don't like uppercase "Of"? I'll wait. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Locke Cole You are the one fighting standard procedure, guidelines and policies, and thus you need to be able to back up your position in the face of overwhelming WP:CONSENSUS against you. -- /Alex/21 00:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex 21: So I take it this means you didn't find an exception in WP:V for article titles. Thanks for clearing up that your argument is flawed and logic has left this conversation for you. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Locke Cole WP:V doesn't cover grammar, it's as simple as that. I'm not the one without a consensus. Good luck with your editing. -- /Alex/21 13:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...WP:V covers verifiability in general and clearly says we shouldn't make things up that can't be verified. This article title is quite literally made up. You're applying a guideline, which has far less weight than a policy, to this issue. That is why your logic is flawed. As to my compromise edits, which were also summarily reverted for no reason, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Typographic_effects which supports including the actual name when it differs from the article title. Good luck with your editing. Good luck trying to get me blocked because you don't like my edits. ;) —Locke Cole • t • c 06:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Locke is doing this on another article too[1]. I don't appreciate this unilateral and inconsistent approach. Not only is Locke misunderstanding W:V and making a mountain out of a stylistic molehill, Locke is failing to work with people on this and take any sort of a collaborative approach. Iff people wanted to make exceptions and do things the way Locke is pushing and use the same capitalization verbatim as it appeared in the original episodes I think that would require agreement at the WP:STARTREK project level, but Locke does not have even one person agreeing with the change on this one article. -- 109.76.138.196 (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I actually corrected most of these titles ages ago, and only recently has this seemingly become a tempest in a teapot with some of the truly crazed grammar nazi's. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
why would you put an apostrophe in "nazis" there?
for someone so vocal on style and grammar, that's a real howler of a typo! 2601:19C:527F:7890:984A:F2C0:D8E7:2B6E (talk) 11:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the recent edits across multiple articles, the editors of this discussion may be interested in the edit-warring report filed against the editor; this can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Locke_Cole reported by User:Alex 21 (Result: Warned). -- /Alex/21 01:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For those interested, I've moved Cause and Effect (Star Trek: The Next Generation) back to the correct title as well (lowercase vs uppercase "and"), after a move from February. Sins of the Father (Star Trek: The Next Generation) was another article moved around the same time; however, it was restored in April. -- /Alex/21 23:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for working through that process Alex 21. I do hope that this is over and done with. Style is nice to have in a stable nearly finished article but it is a shame to spend so much time on it when there are so many more lower level Trek articles badly in need of more content (properly referenced from reliable sources and written in a from a real world perspective of course). Including this article. -- 109.79.177.13 (talk) 04:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see you're trying to WP:CANVASS people here now too. Maybe stick to the facts, or are you realizing how hollow your arguments are? —Locke Cole • t • c 06:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly this is not over yet, Locke still seems to think everyone else is wrong and that he is the lone voice of sanity. Sometimes if no one else agrees with you then maybe you should consider the possibility that you are the one in the wrong? Even if you cannot believe you were wrong perhaps you can believe that you are wasting your own time arguing over this minor detail? WP:TITLEFORMAT is a long established system that some people on Wikipedia decided to use everywhere and while I might personally think is a stupid inconsistent overcomplicated system compared to simply capitalizing the first letter of each word, it doesn't seem like anyone wants to make an exception just because of the original on screen titles. Nonetheless I absolutely do not think Locke has gone about this in a way that was productive or to convince anyone to do things the way he would prefer or likely to result in any agreement to make an exception for a Star Trek article titles. I don't think there is any chance of people changing their opinion on this, otherwise I might suggest trying to build consensus for an exception or asking for a neutral WP:3RD opinion. Alex does not need to CANVASS anyone, Locke has been warned but is still trying to make the same arguments, a temporary block seems increasingly likely. -- 109.79.178.190 (talk) 16:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have been approached by Alex 21 for permission to revert some recent changes by Locke Cole on articles related to this one, including Sins of the Father (Star Trek: The Next Generation) and Cause_And_Effect_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation). As an admin who gave a warning to Locke Cole on specifically edit-warring grounds rather than the detail of the content dispute, I would ordinarily not get involved in the argument over whether the article title should conform to common usage in sources or the MOS. With my article-titles hat on, there's always a line call to be made depending on just how prevalent that "common usage" really is, relative to any exceptions, to determine whether the MOS preference for lowercase prepositions is used or an all-uppercase version and I don't have a strong opinion either way myself on this issue. Reading the discussion above, however, it is clear that there is a consensus in this discussion to follow the MOS in this instance with several participants in favour of that, and only Locke against it. I therefore conclude that there is sufficient consensus here for Alex to revert the above changes, noting as well that Cause And Effect (Star Trek: The Next Generation) was indeed at Cause and Effect (Star Trek: The Next Generation) until a bold move by Locke in February this year so has a good claim to be the long-term title. Any further discussion on this issue should be in this thread, or via a formal WP:RM discussion if Locke wishes to open one, rather than through further edit warring. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's okay, admins are human too, which is why you're making the mistake of putting a MoS guideline above one of the core tenants of the WP:5P, that an article be verifiable. Absolutely ridiculous that people who are forcing a POV on how to capitalize words dictate what article titles are and override a core policy that facts here be verifiable. Thank you for making the encyclopedia worse with this decision. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You may also want to give WP:LOCALCON a read, a small group here on this talk page are incapable of overriding site-wide policy (WP:V). —Locke Cole • t • c 17:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Vandalising policy articles now. I'm not mad, just disappointed. But I guess this is a textbook case of WP:IDHT. -- /Alex/21 21:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a textbook case of something, in this case, it's a textbook case of a majority of editors being wrong, including one admin. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, IDHT. CONSENSUS is policy, as you like to talk about often, and it's against you here. It's not just a "majority"; it's everyone but you. I know it must be upsetting not getting your way, but we must all work together collaboratively without edit-warring and reverting without reason. -- /Alex/21 21:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, WP:LOCALCON which is part of consensus says that a group of editors on some far flung talk page do not get to override site wide policy (WP:V) just because you say so. Happy editing! —Locke Cole • t • c 22:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Repeating yourself changes nothing. You talk of policy and violate three of them. -- /Alex/21 23:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing. Absolutely guaranteed a spot at WP:LAME. Well done all concerned. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V gets priority. Use the style that TNG uses. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not a "fact", that's your opinion. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you an example, it's Mac Mini. Are we now "using the style Apple uses"? Nope. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay (I've honestly lost count on how many times I've said this, but...) WP:V does not cover style and grammar. "Cost of Living" and "Cost Of Living" are the exact same title, there is no difference in meaning between them, the only difference being grammar, which is covered through MOS:CT. -- /Alex/21 01:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well then follow the style used by all the other TNG episodes. PS: Side note: Why was Data's rank never abbreviated as Lt. Cmdr. in the opening credits from the second season onward, like the ranks were for the others (except Troi, who had Counsellor next to her name & Crusher, who had Doctor next to hers. Yeah & back & forth with Worf's rank), ok that's forum stuff. GoodDay (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gaining a consensus

[edit]

Right, so there's clearly a perceived debate here about WP:MOS vs WP:V. So it's going nowhere, thus here's the proposal.... Should the article be named

  1. "Cost Of Living"
  2. "Cost of Living"

Please comment below in favour of your preference with accompanying justification. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cost_of_Living_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation)&oldid=1206802469"