Talk:Conspiracy (Star Trek: The Next Generation)

Untitled

The summary is very long, and I think it might go into too much detail. Also, much of it is written in what seems to me too informal a style. I was wondering if anyone else shared these opinions. -Branddobbe 18:42, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree James 18:47, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I replaced the summary with the significantly shorter version found at |Memory-Alpha. It is GFDL, despite the Creative Commons license on the site, because it was derived from the Wikipedia article in the first place. I think it is still too long for Wikipedia, but is certainly an improvement. James 19:33, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Memory Alpha's text belongs to MEMORY ALPHA, putting theirs or ANYONE OTHER sites text here is a COPYRIGHT VIOLATION! I have returned this to it's original state, so please leave it alone. Cyberia23 02:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Is it just me

Is it just me or at about 27.30min into the ep when Picard and Riker are speaking after the Admiral left in the corridor there is a slightly balding man in a skirt and shin high boots working at a station behind them? Wolfmankurd 17:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

YES! I noticed the same balding man in the skirt, and had to rewind it and note the time. Why?? --Orthogonalogy 19:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That may have been a "Skant" uniform. But being as this section is "Is it just me" I'd like to have my own "is it just me" question.

Is it just me or is this episode of Star Trek remarkably like "Night of the Creeps"? Angelsilhouette (talk) 04:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dexter Remmick.jpg

Image:Dexter Remmick.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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The Creature

I just finished watching this episode. What is the creature and what is it forshadowing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.162.11 (talk) 00:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Note

""Conspiracy" is one of only two episodes in the show's history to be broadcast with a warning about its content." This really shouldn't be there without saying which is the other episode... 70.29.161.7 (talk) 03:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Conspiracy (Star Trek: The Next Generation)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Glimmer721 (talk · contribs) 01:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC) I'm going to try to review this in the next few days. I vaguely remember this episode, mainly because of that image. It's really nice to see Star Trek getting some attention around here. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• The caption for the image could include that it was such graphic scenes that made the episode controversial.
• "...it was decided to broadcast it uncut." Either "it was decided to be broadcast uncut" or "they decided to broadcast it uncut".
• The lead could include little bit more production information, such as origins of the concept or the effects.
• "Once arrived at Dytallix B" → "Once they arrive at Dytallix B"
• "...the crew discover the Horatio and two other Federation ships, but they are unresponsive to their hails." Clarify the pronouns: the first "they" should clearly refer to the ships, while the second should refer to the crew.
• "He reports strange orders and events from Starfleet Headquarters, and expresses concern of a conspiracy." Is "he" referring to Picard or Keel? (I assume the latter, but because Picard was the subject of the previous sentence I original thought it was him. Also, I'm going to apologize for pronoun/antecedent quibbles - I was recently studying those rules.)
• "Quinn requests to beam aboard the Enterprise for a tour, upon his arrival Picard discusses matters with him and comes to believe that he is an impostor – warning Riker of this." I'm not quite sure what the "warning Riker of this" means. It might just be better if it is simply "and Picard warns Riker of this".
• "A bowl of living larvae is served at the meal, Picard attempts to escape, only to find Riker blocking his way." There should be an "and" or other conjunction before "Picard".
• I don't think "one-by-one" needs to have the hyphens. There should be a comma after it also.
• "One of the parasites scurries under a closed door, Picard and Riker follow it." An "and" is needed here too.
• "Dr. Crusher reports that the other parasites, including that in Quinn" Either "the one" or "those", depending on the number
• Was it only the original version that was based on the Iran-Contra affair? The source doesn't specify. Also, that part of the sentence seems tacked-on.
• "Star Trek movies" → "Star Trek movies"
• "series 2" → "season 2" (American)
• "The parasites themselves were created by Makeup & Effects Laboratories from a design by Rick Sternbach." This sentence seems like it would fit better in the previous paragraph where the parasites were discussed.
• What about U.S. broadcast data? Especially the date.
• Tor.com's ratings are actually out of 10, not 5.
• "Zack Handlen reviewed the episode for the A.V. Club, who thought that while he thought it..." → "Zack Handlen, who reviewed the episode for The A.V. Club, thought that while it was a "hard episode to forget," it..."
• "He thought that certain parts of the plot was "idiotic", and that the Admirals reminded him of a "Bond villain convention" → "He thought that certain parts of the plot were "idiotic", and the Admirals reminded him..."
• "It" shows up a lot in the reception section - sometimes it could be changed to "Conspiracy"
• Like Data, watch the contractions. I spot "didn't", "wasn't", and "doesn't". (The latter should also be "did not".)
• All the book references have a colon instead of an end parenthesis.
• For some reason Ref #2 has the published date italicized and after the title as if it is the publisher.

Okay, I definitely remember this episode now, with the bumps in the backs of their necks and the worms. I need to catch up with the episodes I didn't see. Anyway, the article is good, just some copy-editing issues. On hold for 7 days. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think I've rectified the issues raised. Big thanks for the review, btw. As for the US ratings - I'm having a hard time finding them as the show was in syndication (that and late 80's ratings are just a bit hard to find on the web). I checked the sources used for the recent Twin Peaks expansions and they don't include 1988 (and in fact the later years don't include TNG). Only website I've been able to find with the ratings lists is here, but I don't consider it to be a reliable source. Miyagawa (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• I understand the rating issue, especially concerning the syndication. One thing I did fail to mention is that ref #2 doesn't quite support the statement "but was later aired on BBC Two in an edited form". I can see "chopped" = "edited", but the source doesn't mention that it was BBC Two. I've tried to find evidence of the show being aired on BBC Two and came up with this, although it only has the broadcast info of 2007-08 seasons 3-7 reruns. Glimmer721 ^talk 02:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• Ooops! That's a bit of original research sneaking in without even thinking about it. Having watched it at the age of 10 during the first run on BBC Two I hadn't even thought about it twice. I'll find a source to support or I'll remove the remark. The BBC only ever showed Star Trek on BBC Two as far as I'm aware. But I'll find a proper reference for it. Miyagawa (talk) 13:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• Actually I just worked out where to get it - I have access to The Times (UK) archives. I'll simply search for the original broadcast in the schedule. Miyagawa (talk) 13:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• Even better - I added a source from the Radio Times from September this year stating that specifically the episode was aired edited on BBC2. Miyagawa (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• I added that into the reception section as well. Passing! Glimmer721 ^talk 23:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Paul Newman's face?

The article asserts that Remmick's exploding head was modeled after Paul Newman! Is there a source for this, and/or explanation as to why him and not the actor who played Remmick? --Heath 50.134.34.221 (talk) 03:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Weird as it seem, but by using Google Books snippets function to preview that page, it does seem to be an accurate paraphrasing of the book.[1] As for the explanation: special effects are expensive so all kinds of strange things get reused eventually. -- 109.78.211.177 (talk) 05:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Long plot

The Plot section is currently over 800 words, but the MOS:TVPLOT guidelines recommend no more than 400 words. (At over 800 words it is too long even for a double episode or feature film plot WP:FILMPLOT.) The version of the plot section that passed the {{Good article}} review was also in excess of 500 words.[2] Please try to keep the plot section under 400 words if it has not yet been fixed or has bloated back up past the recommended length again. -- 109.78.211.177 (talk) 04:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)