Talk:Who Watches the Watchers

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 09:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The page itself notes that the title of the episode does not end in a question mark, so does it belong in the title of the article? I propose moving it to "Who Watches the Watchers". Objections? Goodnightmush^Talk 23:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

For now I'm going to make the move. I'm only acting on information from the article, though. If the title does have the "?" in it, then it belongs here, but the article specifically notes it doesn't. Goodnightmush^Talk 13:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The only non-wiki source cited give the title with the question mark. I assume that startrek.com is usually seen as a reliable source. --Stemonitis 14:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved to Who Watches the Watchers. --kingboyk (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

There's no question mark in the onscreen title, so the article should be moved. 134.117.137.161 03:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment There don't appear to be any objections to moving this article to "Who Watches the Watchers" per the image above. I am therefore requesting admin assistance for this move --Lox (t,c) 23:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support I agree that the correct title uses no question mark. TJ Spyke 03:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Major Goof with a Prop

I don't know if this is relevant, or even worth mentioning, but the "primitive bow" used by the Mintakans is a modern (well, modern in the '80s)compound hunting bow, poorly disguised. It has a pulley on the bottom limb, and a second string is clearly visible. One of the bows was also left-handed (which is funny, since the "archers" using the props are right-handed) and the arrow rest is on the wrong side of the riser. Someone really dropped the ball on that one.

(edit) Okay, I take that back. They use several bows during the episode, all of which appear to be compound bows. What's even funnier, though, is that bow used to "shoot" Stewart with changes during the course of that scene. First, Liko is holding the FUBAR-ed left-hander. The camera briefly cuts to Stewart, who delivers a few lines. When it cuts back to Liko, the actor is holding a right-handed bow.

Furthermore, the Mintakan hunting arrows are made of aluminum, with plastic fletchings and field target points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.152.227 (talk) 10:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

-Richard B

On your question whether this information is relevant or worth mentioning: It is neither. However, you might find imdb.com and and similar websites an appropriate place for such insight. --Robinandroid (talk) 10:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally I found the information about the goof with the bows far more relevant and worth mentioning than the whole article it's self, which is just a spoiler. It is a spoiler and does not give any forewarning that it is a spoiler. It delivers far more information than that is needed for Wikipedia about the episode and no technical information such as what Richard noted above about the goofs. At least I know now not to look up episodes on Wikipedia, the spoiler website. 50.47.140.236 (talk) 09:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

What you find relevant is not relevant. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If you don't want to know things, don't read it. -- 71.102.128.42 (talk) 02:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

"Who watches the watchers" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Who watches the watchers. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 15#Who watches the watchers until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Izno (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Is tor.com worthy of being a source for it's reviews?

It seems that a single person on the site has took it upon thenselves to review every episode of TNG on Tor.com, but I see nothing substantial or noteworthy for that site to be mentioned as a source, especially with the incredibly biased review structure the author is adhering too, seeming to intentionally be contrarian. There are already plenty of established reviewing sites mentioned in this article, and it feels like this tor.com review has been added solely for the site to gain notoriety. I suggest it's removal from this and other articles. Thanatossassin (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)