Talk:The Best of Both Worlds (Star Trek: The Next Generation)

Clean up required

This article could do with a cleanup and re-write. The plot synopsis is far too reliant on quotes and, in my opinion, does not read well.--Crais459 12:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Deflector Dish Beam

Why is it the ships in First Contact can damage the Borg Cube, but not the deflector dish beam, I know they upgraded thier weapons since then, but the beam channels almost all the energy in the Enterprise-D! That should be way more powerful. One explanation I've heard proposed is the beam isn't really that powerful, as in Night Terrors a hydrogen explosion in space liberates the Enterprise-D, "proving" whereas when they use the beam it doesn't, but again the beam channels all the energy in the ship, which uses dilithium crystals and anti-matter as fuel, much more powerful than a chemical explosion. I just don't understand. 66.189.90.207 15:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• It's not a case of the dish not being powerful enough: it is explained in the episode that the deflector dish does no damage because Picard had prior knowledge of the modifications. When he was assimilated, it allowed the Borg to adapt their shields ahead of time. In the ST:TNG novel Vendetta, another ship uses the same trick and, because they use a different method and frequency, the cube is not able to adapt its shielding ahead of time. The resulting beam blows a hole straight through the Borg ship--160.9.41.113 12:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, first of all, novels aren't canon in Star Trek. And besides frequency what about the pure raw power of the beam. It should be a case that they simply can't make a shield strong enough to resist it. It hits it way too hard. I'm not exactly sure how adjusting the frequency blocks something like this. Of course, I think I'd need more information about how a frequency stops phasers. but borg shield could adapt to photon torpedo's too, an M/AM explosion which is pure energy.

What is it the frequency of? Does the shield refresh itself so many times per second. Like how your monitor screen has a rate of how many times it redraws your screen? If so then perhaps the phaser is faster than the shield, and gets through in the split second intervals when the shield isn't up.

Some fans have extended that the Borg can adapt to anything, which is ludicrous, like being able to shrug off a death star superlaser hit, no matter how they adjusted thier shields, again they simply couldn't make a shield strong enough. The snare 05:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"so that Shelby could replace Riker"

I've pulled this:

It should be noted that the episode was originally written so that Shelby could replace Riker, because Johnathan Frakes, who played Riker, was planning to leave the show. However, after viewing the episode, Frakes was so impressed by the episode, he stayed with the show; thus, the plan to write him out was cancelled.

Anyone have a source to back this up? I don't think this is true. AlistairMcMillan 05:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Not a source, but my understanding is that Picard Patrick Stewart was supposed to be the one to leave the show, in a contract/money dispute. That's why he was the one captured. Shelby was probably supposed to replace Riker so that Riker could replace Picard. --Hires an editor 22:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Which in itself is odd, considering Data was third in command. Technically, he would have automatically become first officer.--Kross^Talk 20:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It's the same logic used in the episode as aired--Shelby, being established in the Command division of Starfleet (as noted by her uniform) and having focused her career on the study of the Borg, was a more suitable candidate for first officer at that point in time. - Pennyforth 03:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"Technically, he would have automatically become first officer" why is that? there is no rule that says guarenteed promotion if your superior leaves/dies, Star fleet command can put whoever they want into any position they want. Also data was not command he was operations officer (yellow uniform) he could assume command but not permanently Smitty1337 (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cube.jpg

Image:Cube.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"I put the Borg to sleep."

As far as the final sequence of the borg, They were are at 100% power. They were put into "sleep sequence" What does everyone do at sleep sequence? they build up energy and power. If the Borg were at 100% power, and built up power? Why shouldn't the article state they overloaded and exploaded? Griffiths1900 03:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)griffiths1900

"Locutus of Borg"?

Does Picard/Locutus call himself "Locutus of Borg" or "Locutus, a Borg"? It sounded to me more like the latter. 84.71.43.87 (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It's unquestionably "Locutus of Borg" in the script. Logical, since you cannot have "a" Borg in a culture that uses no mechanism to identify an individual instead of group (i.e. always "we," never "I"). Personally, I was always bothered by the idea of the Borg giving Picard a designation, since it suggests individuality. When I recently came back to this episode, several years of study later, it clicked. "Locutus" is a Latin word meaning "speaker" or "speech-giver." Therefore it is a relational definition, not an individual one. That extensional is the speaker of the Borg, sort of its ambassador, no different from an extensional identified as third of five or seven of nine or 6535 of 26590. 67.172.247.155 (talk) 06:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It was "locutus, a borg" originally. Just listen to it in best of both worlds. Later it was retconned. I always hated the idea of sth. like borg gentry/royalty. Borg Queen was a good villian but absolutely incompatible with the original borg concept. Thanks a lot voyager;) KhlavKhalash (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

What's your source for this claim? I've always heard it as "of", and I've never heard anyone claim that it was "a". DonIago (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Slow down the scene, you will be able to hear it. KhlavKhalash (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

It wouldn't matter whether I think I hear it. We would need a reliable source. DonIago (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

comment on musical score

As mentioned in the article, Ron Jones' score for this episode is widely regarded as one of the best in all of Star Trek, and I agree. I'm by no means an expert in music theory so I'd like one to comment on whether the following observation is significant enough to be in the article.

During the Picard capture sequence, Jones uses what to me is a very interesting leitmotif for each Borg that materializes on the bridge. It is a march in 3/4 time - waltz time -- instead of the universally standard 2/4 military march time.

I think this was a very effective way to combine the Borg's extremely aggressive, conquering behavior with their utterly alien nature; human armies simply don't waltz into battle, so to speak. It also suggests the stilted robotic movements of individual Borg drones. Any comments? Karn (talk) 01:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Creepy. Very very creepy, and hard to identify why without (as you have done) strict musical analysis. As technically interesting as the use of the minor key in the Imperial March to induce fear. I'd like to add that the Borg are made up asymmetrically, a neat trick. The human brain likes to see symmetry. Asymmetry can trigger a response ranging from "unusual" to "frightening," dependent on context, because in the external human body distinct asymmetry usually indicates an injury or disability. This contrasts with the shape of the ship, which is not aerodynamic (no need for it in interstellar travel) but which looks "wrong" to us because all our vehicles, ships, and aircraft are of necessity aerodynamically or hydrodynamically designed. I think some of both the music and the makeup design theories probably appear in interviews with Jones and Westmore in the official magazine, if anyone wants to pull back issues. In any case, the things are scary enough to convince a ten-year-old girl to spend another ten years finding out why and lecturing about it twenty years later. They still creep me out.67.172.247.155 (talk) 07:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Contingency Error

In a shot at the end of the episode, you see picard look at the earth. Then you see the moon. In "Star Trek: First Contact", William Riker comments that their are living 50 miljon people on the moon. In this shot you just see the how it looks today. Not with the cities new Berlin, etc. Should this somehow be included in the main article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.197.194.125 (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem worth it in my opinion. Star Trek loves its screw ups. Why do you think it's called The Dread Canon? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparent contradiction in airdate needs to be fixed

The article text lists the week of June 18, 1990, for when Part I first aired. The infobox says Part I first aired on July 1, 1990. Neither statement is cited. postdlf (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Best of Both Worlds (Star Trek: The Next Generation). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://members.aol.com/speaker606/jim/tv.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004063505/http://www.ign.com/blogs/peteyoneto/2013/04/25/my-star-trek-tng-best-of-both-worlds-fathom-events-experience to http://www.ign.com/blogs/peteyoneto/2013/04/25/my-star-trek-tng-best-of-both-worlds-fathom-events-experience

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) 19:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

4-30-2020: Display of both TNG Season 3 and 4 Episode Templates

Message to Any Editors

On April 30 2020, I was reading the "Best of Both Worlds" article page and noticed that while the Next Generation (I.E, TNG) Season-3 episode template was shown at page bottom, the Season-4 template was not being shown. Of course, most should know that "Best" was a 2-part episode spread over two Star Trek-TNG seasons, Part-I airing as the last TNG season-3 show, and Part-II airing as the first TNG season-4 show.

In researching previous incarnations of the article page, I discovered that the Season-4 template had been edited out sometime during 2019. In restoring the season-4 template today (4-30-2020), I realized the possible reason for its being previously edited out. The first line of all seven Star Trek:TNG season templates (excluding V-T-E and show/hide) reads "Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes" -- and that's it. There's no further text on that particular line to indicate the specific season in question. In the "hide" (or collapsed) state, one would see both the season-3 and season-4 templates in their unexpanded state, but with nothing to show that these are two distinctly separate templates. Unless otherwise, I believe that may be why the season-4 template got edited out. Thru no fault of their own, that particular editor may have been confused by the appearance of both templates.

In addition to restoring the season-4 episode template, I set the display state of both the season 3 & 4 templates to "expanded", hoping it would in some way clarify that "Best of Both World" spans two seasons.

Regarding the seven TNG season episode templates themselves, I have made -NO- attempt to apply distinguishing labels to each -- for example "Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes (Season 3)" -- on the aforementioned first line of each template. But I personally feel that such a modification to the templates should be at the least taken under consideration.

Thanx-A-Lot. Stay Safe and Well. Fgf2007 (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Nothing of value was lost. The underlying problem is that Navboxes are great big tables full of irrelevant links, that are almost always hidden anyway. We don't tolerate See also sections full of irrelevant junk but for some reason we still allow it from Navboxes. At the moment, the article includes both Navboxes with their contents shown and fully expanded, that's one way to handle it, for now. The thing is Navboxes are never shown to mobile users, nearly half of all users. Navboxes are redundant and cannot be depended on. In the long run, editors must remember that for most users that Navbox is not there and to make sure that anything actually important is included directly in the article. -- 109.79.164.242 (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Big delete

There was a big delete a while back[1] decimating the "best of" lists. I can understand the motivation and also dislike the result. The "best of" lists could be regrouped condensed and summarized without needing to discard any sources. Some of the sources could be reused to provide actual commentary and insight instead of a mere bullet point on a list. The boiler plate repeated text specifying "best of series" "best of franchise" and number rankings or unnecessary specifying of years could all be condensed. I don't immediately recall which article it was but User:Ajd has done exactly this kind of summary before (I'll try to add a link later if I remember). Anyone interested in improving this article would do well to restore all those references that were deleted and then rewrite the article. I might even get around to doing it myself eventually. -- 109.79.164.242 (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Poor references, unsupported peacock claims

The text that the anonymous editor keeps reinserting is problematic in a few ways, most of which derive from its bad sourcing: 1) A brief article on a fan blog in which he talks mostly about about himself and explains that he wasn't even watching the show at the time. This is a terrible source: self-published and second-(third?)-hand. 2) Reader comments on a company blog by Keith DeCandido, who writes for the franchise. Even if a Trek freelancer was an objective source for Trek commentary (he is not, and quoting his review later is equally iffy), and his quips at the end of this particular episode summary were anything other than one person's thoughts (they are not), the article isn't even citing him. The "many watchers note the frustration...." bit is based on the comments posted on the article. That's WP:OR at best, and further assumes that the blog's readers are somehow representative of a much larger population. This is a textbook example of how not to source facts on Wikipedia. As I alluded to in my original edit summary taking out that text: the Reception section already talks about the storytelling impact of the cliffhanger, and does it better than this, by citing credible, independent critics in real publications. This adds nothing to the article except to make it look like a fan gushing awkwardly about a favorite episode. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

For anyone else trying to make sense of the above comment (which I didn't happen to notice at the time) Jason made a delete complaining that some text in the Broadcast section was "embarrassingly written"[2] I try to WP:PRESERVE the good faith edits of others, so I restored it. If something is poorly written I try to rephrase and make it slightly less badly written. The text said the season finale cliffhanger was "noted in television history" which is not the best phrasing but I don't think the sentiment was wrong. (It wasn't as significant a TV event as Who shot J.R.? but what is!) A cliffhanger ending for a season of television was a big deal back then, and not something Star Trek had done before. I didn't think it was unreasonable to mention it in the context of the Broadcast. I would like better references for sure but since it was a slight generalization I thought it was better to keep both references. (Tor.com is the website of Tor Books a well known publisher of science fiction books, part Macmillan Publishers. Keith DeCandido has been used as a reference throughout Wikipedia:WikiProject_Star_Trek. I think he is very objective source, not afraid to criticize Star Trek, but even if he was WP:BIASED he could still be a reliable source. CNN is biased but nonetheless reliable. The specific parts from his review that seemed most relevant to the Broadcast section were "It’s only the second two-parter in Trek history" and "also the first [...] season-ending cliffhanger".)

Jason did rephrase the text in a later edit[3], and it was an improvement. I just didn't think we needed to remove quite as much as he deleted in his earlier edit. I hope the matter is resolved for now, but it may well be rewritten into something better in future. -- 109.79.176.100 (talk) 06:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Reference to Patrick Stewart as "Patrick".

In the fourth par of the Production section. "Patrick Stewart" or "Stewart" would be more appropriate. 2A02:C7C:BCA0:CA00:206B:572E:6988:3BEF (talk) 13:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed. DonIago (talk) 04:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)