Talk:The Dauphin (Star Trek: The Next Generation)

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

More information:
/
	This article lacks sufficient references and adequate inline citations. Please provide any citations per verifiability and reliable sources.
	A production section needs to be added to this article, or the current one needs to be expanded. This section discusses the "behind the scenes" aspects of the production process, award nominations, and insights into the casting and staffing where possible.
	A response section needs to be added to this article, or the current one needs to be expanded. This section should be well cited using neutral and reliable sources that discuss the reaction of both critics and the viewing audience to the show. Additionally, document any impact the show has had on society, and merchandise that may have resulted from the show, such as toys, games, etc.

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

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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Verifiable sources

I'm removing the second sentence of the reception section as the article being cited is from the blogging platform Medium by an anonymous source, which goes against best practices for verifiability This is not a published article for a legitimate publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scwalsh (talk • contribs) 02:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

After typing 'the Dauphin' into the search field, and seeing that the first entry in the autocomplete box was NOT the Star Trek episode (that was second in the list), I was taken to this page anyway. I can tolerate wikipedia's 'geek bias', but this is taking things a little too far, considering how far down the list TNG is on the disambiguation page. Given the fact that this page requires the clarification '(TNG episode)' in the search box, I propose that the default result should be the French court title. Thoughts? --86.152.88.234 (talk) 12:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS calls for eschewing articles (e.g. "The") from the beginning of article titles unless they're part of the actual, emphatic name. Of the entries on the disambiguation page, this is the only one with "The" as part of the concrete title -- hence, BTW, the removal of the "(TNG episode)" disambiguation text. I think the "For other uses, see Dauphin (disambiguation)" text at the top of the article is sufficient. --EEMIV (talk) 13:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a similar note, the article for Vandread contains a link for a (japanese?) singer referred on that page as Salia. Can "Salia" please not redirect here? I don't care that there isn't an article for that person yet, but I think a real person going by that name takes precedence over a fictional character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steam Giant (talk • contribs) 19:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title

There is no way in the world "The Dauphin" primarily refers to this Star Trek episode. The redirect bot will be fixing the double redirects shortly, so in the mean time nobody should change the redirect target page to the dab, otherwise all the links will break. I also believe just "Star Trek" should be fine for parenthetical dab because of WP:CONCISE.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 September 2016

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: moved. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Dauphin (Star Trek) → The Dauphin (Star Trek: The Next Generation) – This article was recently moved from The Dauphin to The Dauphin (Star Trek) based on an argument related to WP:PrimaryTopic. While I have no general opinion on moving it away from that location, what has resulted is certainly incorrect. "The Dauphin" remains a redirect to this article, so WP:PrimaryTopic still applies. It would be logical (can't think of a Spock gag to insert here) that "The Dauphin" is instead redirected to Dauphin, and per the television episode naming convention, this is instead moved to The Dauphin (Star Trek: The Next Generation). After all, the only production now referred to simply as "Star Trek" is the 2009 film; the first production with Shatner et al now being referred to as Star Trek: The Original Series. Miyagawa (talk) 12:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC) Miyagawa (talk) 12:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Consistency, etc. This seems like an uncontroversial move and could just be moved. I just italicized the portion of the title (Star Trek), so please fix the display title code when it's moved (thanks). Randy Kryn 14:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Should have been realized at the time of the earlier move. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Star Trek is enough of a disambiguation, because there is nothing else in Star Trek which could rival it for WP:Primary Topic. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See the fourth bullet of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Naming conventions. Star Trek is not the television series that this episode appeared in. Star Trek: The Next Generation is. The Star Trek disambiguation would only apply where it was an article about a subject which went across multiple series but stayed within the realm of the franchise. For example, Shuttlecraft (Star Trek) or Transporter (Star Trek). Miyagawa (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – as per WP:NCTV, you disambiguate based on the name of the TV series, which in this case is Star Trek: The Next Generation, not Star Trek (i.e. ST:TOS). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WP:IAR and WP:LOCALCONCENSUS, having TNG in disambiguation is not as WP:CONCISE. As I mentioned above, I didn't change the target of the redirect yet so the refirect bot wouldn't screw things up.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONCISE states to follow naming conventions. How is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Naming conventions therefore any different? It is not as if it is part of a WikiProject style guide - it's the MOS. Miyagawa (talk) 09:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LOCALCONCENSUS cannot override community consensus on a wider scale – IOW, WP:LOCALCONCENSUS cannot overrule a guideline like WP:NCTV. And WP:NCTV is quite clear that this article needs to be moved, because right now the disambiguation is implying that this is an episode of Star Trek (ST:TOS) not ST:TNG... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I was referring to WP:NCTV overriding WP:AT. Besides, the definition of a "series" is not entirely clear in this case. "Series" can be synonymous with "franchise". Using only Star Trek in this case in fact harmonized the title with titles like Vulcan (Star Trek), which treat the franchise as a whole as just "Star Trek".-Prisencolin (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not synonymous here – if you want to try though, float that in WT:TV and see what they say. But I'm pretty sure I know the answer: to fully disambiguate here, you need to use the full TV series name. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not sure what to expect, but I posted there.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not response there it seems. Resistance is futile I suppose, I will be assimilated..--Prisencolin (talk) 06:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prisencolin, just as a note, myself and presumably several others saw your message at WT:TV, and came here to respond rather than starting a new discussion over there. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:NCTV but, given the fact that The Dauphin redirects here, I'd argue that there was no reason to move it here in the first place, regardless of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC concerns stated. Were these concerns actually discussed? --AussieLegend (✉) 12:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:NCTV; we disambiguate per series name, not franchise name. Disambiguating with Star Trek only implies that it doesn't fit under one series (i.e. Vulcan (Star Trek)). See also Pilot (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) for something that comes under one series, versus Claire Temple (Marvel Cinematic Universe) for something that crosses over multiple series and should therefore come under the franchise name. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:CONCISE. This change would not help anyone, except perhaps people who obsess over rules. Certainly readers are not benefited by an extra needless three words in the disambiguator. The disambiguator in parentheses exists only to differentiate the topic from others of the same name, which this one does perfectly well since there are no other "The Dauphin" articles referring to other parts of the Star Trek universe. If WP:NCTV says otherwise, then it is contrary to WP:DAB and other general practice on Wikipedia. — Amakuru (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:NCTV. Furthermore, I don't understand why it was moved from The Dauphin, since the episode appears to be the only encyclopedic topic so-named. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further note Request for Unification (Star Trek: The Next Generation) to be moved to "Unification (Star Trek)" turned down here: Talk:Unification (Star Trek: The Next Generation)#Requested move 6 September 2016. Miyagawa (talk) 10:27, 13 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.

Homosexuality

A "dauphin" is male, the female version is "dauphine". Should it be mentioned that this is the first Trek episode that openly displays homosexuality?

Also, we all knew that Wesley was gay so it's not much of a surprise.

17:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC) 2001:9E8:4616:2800:C09A:D2B7:94B0:3455 (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not only homo but also trans. 2001:9E8:4616:2800:C09A:D2B7:94B0:3455 (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]